3/16/12

 

8900.1 CHG 47

Volume 4  Aircraft equipment and operational authorizations

chapter 15  electronic flight bag authorization for use

Section 1  Electronic Flight Bag Operational Authorization Process

4-1641    GENERAL. This section contains specific policy, guidance, and procedures to be used by principal operations inspectors (POI) for processing an operator’s request for “authorization to use” an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB). All POI specialties should coordinate the review of an operator’s EFB program. Once the POIs have completed their review of an EFB application and have determined that the request is valid, authorization to use an EFB will be made by issuing the appropriate operations specifications (OpSpecs)/management specifications (MSpecs). The final result will be an authorization to use an EFB without issuing any sort of approval to any particular hardware system or software application. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) evaluation process for an EFB follows the general process for approval and acceptance as described in Volume 3, Chapter 1, Section 1.

4-1642    APPLICABILITY. This process for EFB authorization is to be used in combination with the current edition of Advisory Circular (AC) 120-76, Guidelines for the Certification, Airworthiness, and Operational Approval of Electronic Flight Bag Computing Devices, and the issuance of an OpSpec or MSpec, in accordance with A061, as described in this order. The processes described in this section may also be used to determine if an EFB may be substituted for aeronautical charts and data used within aircraft operated under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 91. No written authorization is required for part 91 operators except those conducted under part 91 subpart K (part 91K).

A.    Evaluation Process for Class 1 or 2 EFBs Using Type A and/or B Software. The evaluation process described in this section is applicable to Class 1 or 2 EFBs using Type A and/or B software applications. Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG) involvement in the authorization to use Class 1 or 2 EFBs is at the AEG’s discretion. AEG involvement may be expected when an EFB has new or novel functions not addressed in this guidance and/or when there are concerns about EFB use and standardization. When an AEG report exists for a particular Class 1, 2, or 3 EFB or Type A and/or B application, that AEG report is controlling for the determination of operational suitability.

B.    Evaluation Process for Class 3 Hardware and/or Class C Software. Class 3 hardware and/or Type C software applications are evaluated by the AEG in conjunction with type certificate (TC), amended TC, Supplemental Type Certificate (STC), or Technical Standard Order Authorization (TSOA) processes. The AEG determines operational suitability and pilot training, checking, and currency requirements. The AEG determination of suitability for Class 3 EFB hardware may be referenced in the Flight Standardization Board (FSB) report for the particular model aircraft or other AEG report of operational suitability. If Class 3 EFB hardware is not addressed in an AEG report, the FSB chairman for the affected aircraft should be contacted to determine if the AEG has accomplished an operational suitability evaluation. Authorization for EFB Class 3 with Type C software application is subject to existing operator requirements for implementing new or modified certificated equipment, including compliance with FSB reports for differences training, checking, and currency. The operator must address the development of procedures and training associated with EFBs prior to receiving authorization to use each EFB Class 3 and Type C software application.

4-1643    EFB HARDWARE CLASSES. Figure 4-75, Flowchart for Determining Electronic Flight Bag Hardware Class, is provided to aid in the determination of the EFB hardware classes. The EFB must meet the following hardware specifications to be used in an aircraft during flight operations. It is the user’s/operator’s responsibility to document compliance with these specifications for each EFB and aircraft operating combination.

Indicates new/changed information. Indicates new/changed information.

A.    Class 1. These EFBs are portable, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) devices that are part of a pilot’s flight kit and are not mounted to the aircraft. An EFB attached to the pilot’s leg (e.g., kneeboard type) may still be considered a Class 1 EFB because it is not mounted to the aircraft. Class 1 EFBs that have Type B applications for aeronautical charts, approach charts, or electronic checklists (ECL) must be secured and viewable during critical phases of flight and must not interfere with flight control movement. The need for aeronautical charts, approach charts, and ECLs to be immediately available for viewing for all phases of flight is essential for an electronic format to be equivalent to the paper format being replaced. The ability to have departure and arrival charts, approach charts, and airport diagrams continuously in view is essential for situational awareness (SA) during critical phases of flight and very important to runway incursion prevention during takeoff, landing, and taxi operations. This view ability requirement is consistent with current FAA policy that pilot crewmembers have approach charts and airport diagrams viewable during those respective operations.

B.    Class 2. These EFBs are typically mounted to the aircraft by a mounting device and may be connected to a data source, a hardwired power source, or an installed antenna. In order to be considered portable, tools must not be required to remove an EFB from the flight deck, and a pilot crewmember must be able to perform the task. Portable EFBs must be located on the flight deck and controlled by the flightcrew during all flight operations. Although attached to the aircraft via a mounting device, Class 2 EFB hardware must be accessible to the flightcrew and must be removable without the use of tools. The components of the Class 2 EFB include all the hardware and software needed to support EFB intended functions. A Class 2 EFB may consist of modular components (e.g., computer processing unit, display, controls). Any EFB hardware not located on the flight deck and not accessible by the flightcrew must be a certified installation via TC, amended TC, or STC. Any EFB hardware not accessible on the flight deck by the flightcrew and/or not portable must be installed and certificated equipment covered by a TC, amended TC, or STC. The one exception to being accessible on the flight deck is a remotely mounted antenna that provides signal reception to a Class 1 or 2 EFB.

NOTE:  Normally, portable EFBs are limited to hosting Type A and B software applications or Technical Standard Order (TSO) functions limited to a minor failure effect classification. However, Type C software associated with the provision of own-ship position on airport moving map displays (AMMD) may be hosted on Class 1 or 2 portable EFBs. See the current edition of AC 20-159, Obtaining Design and Production Approval of Airport Moving Map Display Applications Intended for Electronic Flight Bag Systems, for details.

C.    Class 3. These EFBs employing any type software application must be approved by TC, amended TC, or STC and are discussed further in subparagraph 4-1646C. Type A or B software applications and user-modifiable software are not subject to FAA certification when installed on a Class 3 EFB. Type A, Type B, or user-modifiable software must not interfere with FAA-certificated Type C software or software that has received FAA design approval by the Aircraft Certification Service (AIR).

Indicates new/changed information.

4-1644    HARDWARE SPECIFICATIONS—CLASS 1 AND CLASS 2 EFBs. Major components such as motherboards, processors, Random-Access Memory (RAM), video cards, hard drives, power supplies, and connections (modem, wireless, etc.) must be configuration controlled. Any change to these components will require the EFB to be reevaluated to demonstrate that the EFB still meets its intended function, non-interference, and reliability requirements. Figure 4-76, Hardware Description Template, is a template that has been provided to facilitate the documentation of these components.

NOTE:  For permanently sealed devices, use the manufacturer and model or manufacturer and part number from Figure 4-76 for configuration control of these devices.

A.    Display. The following display requirements are specified when a Type B application is available on an EFB during certain critical phases of flight (e.g., taxi, takeoff, approach, and landing).

1)    Legibility. The screen size and resolution must be proven to display information in a comparable manner to the aeronautical charts and data it is intended to replace. The screen must display an approach chart in an acceptable aeronautical chart format similar to a published paper approach chart. The screen must be large enough to show an entire instrument approach procedure (IAP) chart at once with the equivalent degree of legibility and clarity as a paper chart. This requirement is not meant to preclude panning and zooming features but is intended to prevent a workload increase during the approach phase of flight. Alternate representations of approach charts will need to be evaluated and approved by the FSB process for functionality and human factors.
2)    Brightness. The display must be proven to be readable in all anticipated lighting conditions by each pilot and in each aircraft in which it is to be used. The display must have a dimming capability that would prevent the EFB from being a distraction or impairment to night vision in a night flight deck environment. The display must also be demonstrated to be readable on the flight deck in direct sunlight. Display brightness must be equally adjustable whether the EFB is operating on battery or aircraft power. Users should be able to adjust the screen brightness of an EFB independently of the brightness of other displays on the flight deck. When automatic brightness adjustment is incorporated, it should operate independently for each EFB on the flight deck. Buttons and labels should be adequately illuminated for night use. All controls must be properly labeled for their intended function.
3)    Viewing Angle. The display must be viewable from an offset angle to preclude difficulty in positioning the EFB on the aircraft flight deck. When screen protectors are used, they must be maintained and be proven not to impede viewing of the screen. (See AC 120-76, paragraph 10b(3) for important issues concerning viewing angle.)
4)    Stylus. For a stylus screen, there must be an easily accessible stowage position for the stylus and an accessible spare stylus (or substitute stylus) must be available.
5)    Digitizer Pen. When a digitizer pen is used to operate the EFB, the digitizer pen must have an easily accessible stowage position and be tethered. A spare digitizer must be immediately available and adjusted for use on each EFB.
6)    Touch Screen. If a touch screen is used, it must be evaluated for ease of operation. The touch screen must be responsive and not require multiple attempts to make a selection, but not be so sensitive that erroneous selections occur.

B.    Rapid Decompression (RD) Testing. RD testing is required to determine an EFB’s functional capability when Type B software applications are used in pressurized aircraft where no alternate procedures or paper backup are available. RD testing is not required when only Type A applications are used on the EFB. The information from the RD test is used to establish the procedural requirements for the use of that EFB in a pressurized aircraft. RD testing should follow the guidelines in RTCA, Inc. DO-160, Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment, for RD testing up to the maximum operating altitude of the aircraft in which the EFB is to be used. It is the operator’s responsibility to provide the POI with documented results of the RD testing.

1)    Pressurized Aircraft. RD testing for Class 1 and/or 2 EFBs must be conducted when Type B applications are used in lieu of paper-based aeronautical charts in pressurized aircraft in flight. When a Class 1 or 2 EFB is turned on and operates reliably during the RD test, no mitigating procedures need to be developed beyond redundancy. When a Class 1 or 2 EFB is turned off during the RD test and is fully functional following the RD, then procedures must be in place to ensure that one of the two EFBs onboard the aircraft remains off or configured so no damage will be incurred should an RD occur in flight above 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL).
2)    Unpressurized Aircraft. RD testing is not required for a Class 1 or 2 EFB used in an unpressurized aircraft. The EFB must be demonstrated to reliably operate up to the maximum operating altitude of the aircraft. If EFB operation at maximum operating altitude is not attainable, procedures must be established to preclude operation of the EFB above the maximum demonstrated EFB operation altitude while still maintaining availability of required aeronautical information.

C.    Electromagnetic Interference/Non-Interference Testing. It is the user’s/operator’s responsibility to determine that the operation of a portable electronic device (PED) will not interfere, in any way, with the operation of aircraft equipment. The current edition of AC 91.21-1, Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard Aircraft, addresses non-interference testing for noncritical phases of flight only and is not adequate when Type B applications are used for all phases of flight. AC 91.21-1 and the additional guidance for non-interference contained in this order are required for Class 1 and 2 EFBs.

1)    PEDs. In order to operate a PED in other than a noncritical phase of flight, the user/operator is responsible for ensuring that the PED will not interfere in any way with the operation of aircraft equipment. The following methods are applicable to Class 1 and 2 EFBs with Type B applications required for use during all phases of flight. Either Method 1 or Method 2 may be used for non-interference testing.
a)    Method 1 for compliance with PED non-interference testing for all phases of flight is completed in the two following steps.

·    Step 1 is to conduct an electromagnetic interference (EMI) test in accordance with RTCA DO‑160, section 21, paragraph M. This Step 1 test can be conducted for an EFB user/operator by an EFB vendor or other source. The results of the RTCA DO-160 EMI test must be evaluated to determine that an adequate margin exists between the EMI emitted by the PED and the interference susceptibility threshold of aircraft equipment. If Step 1 testing determines adequate margins exist for all interference (both “front door” and “back door” susceptibility), then Method 1 is complete. If Step 1 testing identifies inadequate margins for interference (either “front door” or “back door” susceptibility), then Step 2 testing must be completed; and

·    Step 2 testing is specific to each aircraft model in which the PED will be operated, but it is testing only the specific equipment and/or equipment operation. Step 2 testing must be conducted in an actual aircraft and may be credited to similarly equipped aircraft of the same make/model as tested. Step 2 testing must show that no interference of aircraft equipment occurs from the operation of the PED.

b)    Method 2 for compliance with PED non-interference testing for all phases of flight is a complete test in each aircraft using an industry standard checklist. This industry standard checklist must be of the extent normally considered acceptable for non-interference testing of a PED in an aircraft for all phases of flight. Testing for a particular aircraft make/model may be credited to other similarly equipped aircraft of the same make/model.
2)    Transmitting Portable Electronic Devices (T-PED). In order to operate a T-PED in other than a noncritical phase of flight, the user/operator is responsible to ensure the T-PED will not interfere with the operation of the aircraft equipment in any way. The following method is applicable to all Class 1 or 2 EFBs with Type B applications required for use during all phases of flight. Non-interference testing for T-PEDs consists of two separate test requirements.
a)    Test Requirement 1. Each T-PED must have a frequency assessment based on the frequency and power output of the T-PED. This frequency assessment must consider Federal Communications Commission (FCC) frequency standards and be in accordance with applicable processes set forth in RTCA DO-294, Guidance on Allowing Transmitting Portable Electronic Devices (T-PEDs) on Aircraft. This frequency assessment must confirm that no interference of aircraft or ground equipment will occur as a result of intentional transmissions from these devices.
b)    Test Requirement 2. Once a frequency assessment determines there will be no interference from the T-PED’s intentional transmissions, each T-PED must then be tested while operating using either Method 1 or Method 2 for basic non-interference testing requirements described above. This basic non-interference testing is applicable to both a T-PED that is integrated into an EFB and a T-PED that is remote to an EFB. When a T-PED is integrated into an EFB, the basic non-interference testing must be completed both with and without the T-PED function being operative. If a T-PED is located remote from the EFB, the T-PED basic non-interference testing is independent from the EFB non-interference testing. T-PED position is very critical to T-PED non-interference testing, therefore the operating/testing locations of a T-PED must be clearly defined and adhered to in T-PED operating procedures.

D.    Antennas.

1)    Satellite Weather Antennas. A satellite weather antenna may be built into a Class 1 or 2 EFB or external to the EFB. A portable satellite antenna is considered ancillary PED equipment and must be included in EFB evaluation and testing. Installed antennas for satellite weather may be used to provide signal reception for EFB intended functions. When a satellite receiver is installed separate from the portable EFB, it must meet appropriate installation requirements.
2)    Global Positioning System (GPS) Antennas. A GPS antenna may be built into a Class 1 or 2 EFB or external to an EFB. A portable GPS antenna is considered ancillary PED equipment and must be included in EFB evaluation and testing. An installed GPS antenna may be used to provide signal reception to an EFB and must support the intended function of the EFB.

·    GPS data may be used for map centering when en route charts are displayed on an EFB. Map centering may be used as an en route chart feature only and may not be used when an approach chart is displayed;

·    Own-ship position may never be displayed on a Class 1 or 2 EFB in flight; and

·    A GPS installation in compliance with AC 20-159 is required for the depiction of own-ship position on an AMMD.

NOTE:  If a portable GPS is used to provide position information to an EFB, the portable GPS is subject to the same requirements as the EFB. The EFB must demonstrate its intended functions with the GPS both enabled and disabled. In addition, the EFB must be non-interference tested with the portable GPS attached and operative, as well as with the portable GPS not attached (unless the EFB is considered inoperative without the portable GPS). Class 1 or 2 EFBs may use position information from a portable GPS only for en route map centering or page turning, but must not display own-ship position on the EFB. (Exception: See AC 20-159 for use of own-ship position on an AMMD.)

E.    Power Sources.

1)    Battery Primary. For Class 1 or 2 EFBs where the primary power source is a battery, useful battery life must be established and documented for the EFB. When procedures are not established for aircraft power to provide battery recharging during flight operations, at least one fully charged spare battery must be provided for each EFB that is providing a paperless source of aeronautical information pertinent to flight. When EFB battery charging is not possible in the aircraft, additional fully charged EFB batteries must be available to ensure operational performance for the planned duration of the flight, plus 1 hour.
2)    Battery Maintenance. EFB battery maintenance needs to be addressed as either a maintenance or operating procedure to ensure battery life, change intervals, and safety. EFB batteries, including those carried as spares, must be maintained in an appropriate state of charge. Batteries must be replaced at the EFB manufacturer’s recommended interval.
3)    Aircraft Power Secondary. Where the EFB primary power source is a battery, procedures may be established to use aircraft power for battery recharging during flight operations. In this case, aircraft power is secondary and not considered essential to EFB operation because the EFB will operate without aircraft power.
4)    Aircraft Power Primary (Class 2 Only). When an EFB uses aircraft power as the primary power source, design approval is required for this connection and power source by TC, amended TC, or STC. This type of EFB power source will normally be hardwired to the EFB mounting device or directly to aircraft power source through a connector.

F.    Data Connectivity (Class 2 Only). EFB data connections to aircraft data sources require design approval by TC, amended TC, or STC to ensure that the aircraft systems are protected from any EFB failure modes. These data connections should be “read only,” except for nonessential Airline Administrative Communication (AAC) or Airline Operational Communication (AOC) systems. Data connection from the aircraft navigation system may not be used to display own-ship position on a Class 1 or 2 EFB in flight. Aircraft navigation system source data may be used for AMMD position on taxi diagrams in accordance with AC 20-159.

G.    Data Loading/Database Changes. Class 1 or 2 EFBs must have a reliable means for revising the EFB databases. Database currency is determined by what required aeronautical information the EFB is replacing. Each method of data revision must ensure integrity of the data being loaded and not negatively impact the reliability of EFB operation. Procedures must exist to protect the EFB from corruption, especially when internet and/or wireless means are used. Database revision does not include application software or operating system changes. Application software and/or operating system program changes must be controlled and tested prior to use in flight. Database and/or application software changes may not be performed during operations (taxi, takeoff, in-flight, landing).

NOTE:  External drives for data loading are considered ancillary EFB equipment and not subject to specific requirements beyond those identified for data loading/database revision above.

H.    Mounting Devices (Class 2 Only). The EFB, when attached to its appropriately designed mounting device, must be evaluated to ensure operational suitability in all ground and flight operations and conditions. When attached to its mounting device, the EFB must not interfere with flightcrew duties and must be easily and safely stowed when not in use. In addition, the attached EFB must not obstruct flightcrew primary and secondary fields of view, nor impede safe egress. (See AC 120-76.)

4-1645    EFB SOFTWARE SPECIFICATIONS. Figure 4-77, Flowchart for Determining Electronic Flight Bag Software Application Type, is provided to aid in the determination of the EFB software application type.

A.    Type A. Type A applications are those applications intended for use on the ground or during noncritical phases of flight when pilot workload is reduced. AC 120-76, Appendix A lists examples of Type A applications. Malfunction of a Type A application must be limited to a “minor failure effect” classification for all flight phases and have no adverse effect on the completion of a flight operation.

1)    Type A applications for aeronautical charts are applications that require all aeronautical charts pertinent to the flight to be printed prior to departure of the flight.
2)    Type A applications for Weight and Balance (W&B) are applications that present existing information found in the applicable Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) or pilot’s operating handbook (POH). Type A W&B applications may accomplish basic mathematics but must not use algorithms to calculate results. Type A W&B applications must retrieve and apply existing published information.
3)    Type A applications for aircraft performance are applications that present existing information found in the applicable AFM or POH. Type A applications for performance may be software applications that retrieve and apply existing published information. Type A performance applications must not use algorithms to calculate results.

B.    Type B. Type B applications are applications that are intended for use during critical phases of flight or have software and/or algorithms that must be tested for accuracy and reliability. AC 120-76, Appendix B may be referred to for examples of Type B applications.

1)    Type B aeronautical chart applications are applications that display aeronautical charts in electronic format. These applications must be available for use during all phases of flight. These applications do not require paper printing of aeronautical charts and the viewable electronic format allows chart manipulation.
2)    Type B ECL applications provide cockpit checklists in compliance with regulatory requirements. These applications must be available for use during all phases of flight. ECL (systems) must be tested for flight operations suitability and must not adversely impact pilot workload.
3)    Type B W&B applications are applications with algorithms to calculate W&B results. Type B W&B applications are produced for a specific aircraft and, therefore, must be tested and proven accurate by the applicant.
4)    Type B aircraft performance applications are performance applications with algorithms to calculate performance results. Type B aircraft performance applications are produced for a specific aircraft and, therefore, must be tested and proven accurate by the applicant.

C.    Type C. These software applications are RTCA DO-178B, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, compliant and require Aircraft Certification design approval. Type C applications can be used on Class 3 EFB equipment, which are approved by TC, amended TC, or STC. Type C applications that receive a TSOA and meet the safety condition for “minor failure effect” or “no safety effect,” per AC 120-76, may be authorized for use on Class 1 or Class 2 EFBs. For AMMD applications and installation eligibility, refer to AC 20-159.

4-1646    OPERATIONAL SUITABILITY REQUIREMENTS. The user/operator is responsible for ensuring that a Class 1 or 2 EFB, along with Type A and B applications, will reliably perform its intended function while not interfering with other aircraft equipment or operations.

A.    Application Documentation. The user/operator must present application documentation to the POI demonstrating that the EFB meets its intended function. The attached flowcharts illustrated in Figure 4-75 and Figure 4‑77 will assist the user/operator with the identification and documentation of EFBs. Determining the operational suitability of a particular EFB is the responsibility of the user/operator and may be subject to specific guidelines from the applicable AEG reports.

1)    When an operator has completed the evaluation of a Class 1 or 2 EFB, the operator must submit an application requesting authorization to use the EFB. The POI will review the application submitted by the operator and authorize/not authorize the use of the EFB based on the findings of the POI Review Checklist 3, illustrated in Figure 4‑78, Principal Operations Inspector Review Checklist.
2)    When a new aircraft model is added to an existing EFB authorization, the suitability of the EFB for that aircraft must be addressed as part of aircraft conformity using this evaluation process. When a new EFB is added to an existing EFB authorization, the suitability of the new EFB must be addressed using this same evaluation process.

B.    Operational Evaluation of Class 1 or 2 Hardware/Type A or B Software. The user/operator must evaluate the EFB for suitability of intended functions in each aircraft model.

1)    The user/operator must use the checklist as illustrated in Figure 4-79, Checklist 1—Tabletop Electronic Flight Bag Evaluation, to evaluate the operational suitability of the proposed EFB intended functions and aircraft model suitability. The intended functions of software applications must be appropriate to the individual aircraft make and model.

·    Electronic documents,

·    ECL software,

·    W&B software,

·    Performance software,

·    Electronic aeronautical chart software, and

·    Weather information.

2)    The user/operator should use the checklist shown in Figure 4-80, Checklist 2—Electronic Flight Bag Operational Evaluation, to develop a flight scenario for final EFB testing when initial EFB use is being evaluated. Operators requesting initial EFB authorization must include their POI in the flight/simulator evaluation of an initial EFB implementation. Operational evaluations for subsequent additions of EFBs or aircraft models need not conduct flight/simulator evaluations provided intended functions remain substantively the same as previously evaluated EFBs.

C.    Operational Suitability of Class 3 Hardware/Type C Software. Class 3 hardware and/or Type C software applications are evaluated by the AEG in conjunction with a TC, amended TC, or STC certification process. The AEG determines operational suitability and pilot training, checking, and currency requirements. The AEG determination of suitability for Class 3 EFB hardware may be referenced in the FSB report (FSB reports are found at opspecs.com) for the particular model aircraft or other AEG report of operational suitability. If Class 3 EFB hardware is not addressed in an AEG report, the FSB chairman for that aircraft should be contacted to determine if the AEG has completed an operational suitability evaluation. Class 3 EFB and Type C software application authorization is subject to existing operator requirements for certified equipment. The operator must address the development of procedures and training associated with EFBs prior to receiving authorization to use each Class 3 EFB and Type C software application.

4-1647    EFB PROCEDURES. The operator’s operations and maintenance procedures must be specific to each EFB and the operations conducted. The operator’s manual must identify each model of EFB authorized and each model of aircraft.

A.    EFB Configuration Control. Standard EFB configuration control must be established and base-lined (i.e., initial hardware and software version at time of application) along with procedures to ensure that the EFB configuration control is maintained during system updates/revisions. Class 1 or 2 EFB configuration affects usability and battery life through setup of suspend/sleep modes. All classes of EFBs must have established standard operating procedures (SOP) to ensure reliable use of hardware and software. Procedures must be established for EFB database revision. This should include verification of continued intended function prior to use in flight operations following an EFB database revision.

NOTE:  Software updates, especially in the EFB operating system, must have extensive test procedures prior to use in flight operations. Software revision procedures must be comprehensive to ensure continued reliability of the EFB and verification of reliable intended function.

B.    Normal and Abnormal Operating Procedures.

1)    Normal procedures for flight operations must be developed for all flight operations with EFBs. Preflight must address battery charging, EFB database revision and data currency, EFB configuration control, and SOP for EFB setup. In-flight procedures must include standard application operating procedures and EFB standard flight operating procedures for use.
2)    Abnormal procedures must be established to address likely EFB function failures. Procedures for single and dual EFB failure must be established.
3)    Class 1 or 2 EFB operating procedures and limitations must be established if the EFB being used has not demonstrated RD testing while on and operating. (See subparagraph 4-1644B.)
4)    Checklists must be established or revised to include normal and abnormal EFB procedures to be used by pilots in flight. This may be accomplished by amending checklists when approved operator-customized cockpit checklists are used or by creating an EFB checklist supplement when aircraft manufacturer cockpit checklists are used.

C.    Minimum Equipment List (MEL). When MEL relief is requested, the MEL must be amended in compliance with the aircraft’s Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL). An inoperative Class 1 EFB may be removed from the aircraft without MEL relief being utilized, provided redundancy is maintained or paper backups for all Type B applications are available.

D.    Maintenance. Regular maintenance procedures are required for Class 1 and 2 EFBs, including measures to ensure the continued readability of the viewing screen. EFB battery maintenance needs to be addressed to ensure battery life, change intervals, and safety. Class 3 EFB maintenance must comply with the aircraft instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA).

E.    Risk Mitigation. Procedures must be established for a transition to paperless authorization. Initial procedures establish an independent backup during the EFB validation period. Procedures must be established for continuous reporting of problems with EFBs. There must be procedures in place for the user/operator to review these reports periodically to mitigate potential unreliability issues and correct operating procedures where necessary. Procedures must be established to notify flightcrews of EFB problems or use issues. (For more information on risk mitigation, refer to Volume 10, Chapter 1.)

NOTE:  When certain Type B applications (e.g., approach charts, aeronautical charts, ECLs, and flight manuals) are utilized on Class 1 or 2 EFBs to replace aeronautical charts or data required by regulation, risk mitigation is required per AC 120-76. Such mitigation methods may be satisfied by use of multiple EFB hardware and software or backup paper aeronautical charts and data. Redundancy in the form of traditional paper aeronautical charts or data, a second EFB, or other procedural means may satisfy acceptable risk. When determining the need for redundancy, take into consideration that no single failure or common mode error can cause the loss of required aeronautical information or data. The need for redundancy should also consider independent power sources or battery backup for the EFB. (See AC 120-76, paragraph 9.)

F.    Training. The operator must develop EFB training for all personnel involved with EFB use, database servicing, and maintenance. EFB training must comply with training identified in AC 120-76 and be FAA-approved where applicable.

4-1648    AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS. This paragraph outlines the airworthiness and return to service (RTS) requirements for installed components or provisions of Class 1 or 2 EFBs. These airworthiness requirements are applicable to all installed provisions capable of supporting EFB functions at flightcrew stations, regardless of any other stated intended function. The installer remains responsible to ensure that all certification and airworthiness requirements are met for each installation. For provisional installations, each installer remains responsible for compliance with EFB airworthiness requirements, and each operator is responsible for EFB operational use requirements of the installed provisions capability. All Class 3 EFB installations require certification under TC, amended TC, or STC prior to installation.

A.    EFB Power Source.

1)    Class 1 EFB Power Source. This is defined as aircraft power being used to recharge the EFB battery during flight operation, but the EFB battery remains the primary EFB power supply. Airworthiness criteria for Class 1 aircraft power sources may be in accordance with existing airworthiness requirements for PED outlets installation. Such outlets, if installed, must be labeled for exclusive use by the EFB.

NOTE:  Special consideration must be given to the type of electrical power provided for the recharging of lithium ion batteries. Lithium ion batteries pose a safety hazard if overcharged or excessively discharged. Operators should have lithium ion battery charging procedures that are in total accordance with the battery manufacturer’s charging instructions and prevent aggravation of lithium ion battery thermal hazards.

2)    Class 2 EFB Power Source. This is aircraft power used as the primary EFB power supply and requires the power supply to be hardwired or connected with certified connectors to ensure reliability. This is an EFB that continuously depends on connection to aircraft power to perform its intended function (no sustaining battery power). The aircraft power for Class 2 EFB power supplies must be designed to remain available, at an acceptable level for required flight information, in the event of aircraft electrical malfunctions. Class 2 EFB power supplies require design approval by AIR under TC, amended TC, or STC, which excludes the installation from eligibility for field approval.

B.    EFB Data Connectivity. This read-only data is provided to an EFB from the aircraft’s systems (e.g., flight management system (FMS), GPS, air data, fuel system) through a certified ARINC 429, RS-232, RS-485, or other compatible interfaces or certified router. EFB data connectivity does not include raw antenna reception data from an installed antenna going directly to the EFB. EFB data connectivity must include isolation to preclude the EFB from interfering with any aircraft system, and all associated wiring must be protected from damage and secured. EFB data connectivity requires design approval. Such design approval must be accomplished under TC, amended TC, or STC by AIR and excludes the installation from eligibility for field approval.

NOTE:  Data converters (e.g., ARINC 429 to RS-232) that are capable of supporting EFB functions at flightcrew stations must have design approval issued by the FAA.

C.    EFB Mounting Devices.

1)    Yoke-mounted EFBs must be certificated by a design approval by AIR under TC, amended TC, or STC. All the structural and dynamic, as well as wiring protection and security requirements affecting the flight controls (including autopilot, stall warning, stick pusher, crashworthiness, human factors, etc.), must be addressed prior to installation. Field approval or Designated Engineering Representative (DER) approval without a design approval from AIR by TC, amended TC, or STC is not permitted for yoke-mounted EFBs.
2)    Cockpit-mounted EFBs are Class 2 EFBs mounted in the cockpit other than on the control yoke. The EFB mounting device requires airworthiness approval by AIR. FAA policy excludes this installation from eligibility for field approval.

D.    Installed Antennas. Installed antennas are those antennas permanently installed in the aircraft. Portable antennas attached to a portable EFB, but not attached to the aircraft, are not subject to these airworthiness requirements. Portable antennas and temporary antenna holders, like suction cups, are subject to EFB evaluation requirements only. Installation of antennas capable of supporting EFB functions at flightcrew stations must be accomplished using existing guidance for antenna airworthiness considerations.

1)    Antennas combining reception for both aircraft navigation and EFB must be TSO-approved for this intended function, providing isolation to preclude the EFB from interfering with antenna reception for aircraft navigation.
2)    TSO- or STC-approved antennas may be used to independently provide GPS and/or satellite weather for an EFB in accordance with existing installation airworthiness requirements.
3)    Portable EFB-only antennas without a TSO may be used to provide a GPS or satellite weather signal for EFB-only use. Non-interference testing by the installer is required.

E.    Installed Satellite Receivers (e.g., Weather Radar (WX) Worx, XM Weather, WSI Inflight). If any component of a weather receiver is installed in an aircraft separate from a portable EFB on the flight deck, it is subject to avionics installation requirements and may not be considered a PED. If the result of the received weather data is capable of being displayed on an EFB, the individual components of the weather receiver system cannot be installed as STC provisions only because the installation cannot meet 14 CFR part 43 requirements for testing of non‑interference without performing its intended function. (See the current edition of FAA Order 8110.4, Type Certification, for more information on this subject.) The weather receiver must be non-interference tested with the intended EFB installed and operative even though the installation only applies to the weather receiver. The airworthiness for the weather receiver installation is independent of EFB/PED suitability responsibility of the user/operator. The user/operator is responsible for EFB non-interference as a PED and the installer is responsible for non-interference for the weather receiver as part of installation requirements. This installation requires design approval under TC, amended TC, or STC, which excludes the installation from eligibility for field approval.

4-1649    AUTHORIZATION PROCESSES. The operator is responsible to ensure that all operational requirements are met for an EFB. The operator must submit documentation demonstrating compliance with all operational requirements for EFBs to their POI. The FAA evaluation process for an EFB follows the general process for approval and acceptance as described in Volume 3, Chapter 1.

A.    Phase One—Initiation. Phase one of the process begins when the operator requests authorization to use the EFB from the FAA. During this phase, the FAA and the operator reach a common understanding of the role of the FAA and what documents and actions the operator is responsible for during each phase of the authorization process.

B.    Phase Two—Required Application Information. Phase two begins when the operator submits a formal EFB plan to the POI for evaluation. The plan is reviewed for completeness, and the POI facilitates coordination with other inspectors and FAA offices, as necessary. During phase two, the POI may coordinate with the appropriate AEG for guidance on EFBs that have functions not addressed in this guidance. Once the plan is accepted, the operator follows that plan to produce a complete EFB program. The operator must submit the following information in the application package:

·    EFB hardware and application specification (Figure 4-76 and Figure 4-81, Evaluation Report Information Template),

·    EFB operator procedures/manual revisions,

·    EFB cockpit procedures checklists,

·    EFB training program,

·    EFB evaluation report (Figure 4-79 and Figure 4-80),

·    RD test data (when required),

·    Completed non-interference test results, and

·    Airworthiness documents for Class 2 equipment (mounting device, aircraft data connection, aircraft power primary, remote antenna).

C.    Phase Three—POI Review. The POI must use the checklist found in Figure 4-78 to conduct a review of the application submitted by an operator. All POI specialties should coordinate the review of an operator’s EFB program. The POI should participate in the simulator evaluation or flight evaluation of an EFB when a user/operator is requesting initial EFB authorization. Additional simulator/flight evaluations are not required for adding a new EFB to an existing authorization unless there is a substantial change in EFB intended functions. When a new aircraft is added to a certificate with existing EFB authorization, the suitability of the EFB for that aircraft must be addressed as part of aircraft conformity and configuration control process. Inspectors should examine the technical content and quality of the proposed EFB program and other supporting documents and procedures. The user’s/operator’s program for EFB management is critical to EFB reliability and must be well documented for EFB users.

D.    Phase Four—Temporary Authorization to Use an EFB. An interim EFB authorization is granted to allow the certificate holder/operator/program manager to proceed with the required EFB 6-month operational validation testing. During validation testing, the certificate holder/operator/program manager must maintain a paper backup of all electronic information. For tracking and standardization purposes, the Flight Standards Service (AFS) field office principal inspector (PI) assigned oversight responsibility will temporarily issue the certificate holder/operator/program manager OpSpec/MSpec/letter of authorization (LOA) A061. The “Restrictions and Limitations” column of Table 1 should include the remark “Temporary Authorization to conduct 6-month operational validation testing.” All text added to OpSpec/MSpec/LOA A061 through the use of nonstandard text entered in the nonstandard text block (sometimes referred to as “Text 99”) must be approved by the appropriate headquarters (HQ) policy division. For detailed guidance on the process for obtaining HQ approval for nonstandard authorizations, PIs must read the guidance contained in Volume 3, Chapter 18, Section 2.

Indicates new/changed information.

NOTE:  The 6-month validation test formally begins when the certificate holder/operator/program manager is issued this A061 temporary authorization. Use Figure 4-82, Checklist 4—Electronic Flight Bag Line Evaluation Job Aid, for data collection during the validation phase. Validation testing should follow the guidelines in AC 120-76.

Indicates new/changed information.
1)    Unacceptable Validation Results. If the PI finds the proposed EFB reliability and/or function to be unacceptable by the conditions of this EFB guidance, then the PI should contact the operator for corrective action. EFB deficiencies must be corrected and the EFB function revalidated before proceeding to phase five.
2)    Acceptable Validation Results. If at the completion of the EFB 6-month validation test, the PI finds the proposed EFB reliability and/or function to be acceptable based on validation data, then the certificate holder/operator/program manager can proceed to phase five of the EFB A061 authorization process.

E.    Phase Five—Authorization to Use an EFB. The certificate holder/operator/program manager subject to regulations under 14 CFR parts 91K, 121, 125 (including 125 Letter of Deviation Authority (LODA) holders (125M)), and 135 is granted authorization to use an EFB through OpSpec/MSpec/LOA A061 after acceptable completion of validation testing in phase four. The PI will remove the “temporary authorization” annotated in the restrictions and limitations column of Table 1. Any subsequent change to EFB hardware or intended functions must be validated at a level appropriate to the effect of the change on the EFB program.

Figure 4-75.    Flowchart for Determining Electronic Flight Bag Hardware Class

NOTE:  If you wish to print this diagram, A3 size paper must be used.

Figure 4-76.    Hardware Description Template

Major components such as a motherboard, processor, Random-Access Memory (RAM), video card, hard drive, power supply, and connections (modem, wireless, etc.) must be identified. Any change to these components subsequent to initial evaluation and authorization will require the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) device to be evaluated again to demonstrate that the EFB still meets all requirements, including reliability. The template below has been provided to facilitate the documentation of these components.

a) Aircraft Owner or Applicant’s Name:

b) Aircraft Make/Model:

c) Operating Rule 14 CFR Parts 121, 125, 129, 135, and 91 Subpart K (Part 91K), 91 Subpart F, and Other Applicable Part 91 Subparts:

d) EFB Manufacturer/Model/Part Number:

Indicates new/changed information.

e) The following major components are included with this make/model of EFB:

NOTE:  For permanently sealed devices, use the manufacturer and model or manufacturer and part number from this figure for configuration control of these devices.

Component

Manufacturer

Model

Part Number

Motherboard

 

 

 

BIOS

 

 

 

Processor

 

 

 

Video Card

 

 

 

Hard Drive

 

 

 

CD-ROM

 

 

 

DVD Drive

 

 

 

Wireless Connection

 

 

 

Power Supply

 

 

 

f) Operating System and Version: (insert Windows operating system name), version (insert version number), service pack (insert service pack number), build (insert build number):

g) Identify the classification of hardware proposed (Class 1, 2, or 3):

h) List all proposed Type A, Type B, and Type C applications on this EFB device:

i) EFB Mounting System:

·    Has the mounting device or system been certificated under 14 CFR part 23, 25, 27, or 29:

o Yes o No (check one)

·    Type certificate (TC), amended TC, or Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) number:

·    Manufacturer and model number of mounting device or system:

·    Mounting description:

j) Identify if the EFB will use the aircraft as the primary power supply:

k) Identify any/all aircraft systems that will connect to the EFB device:

Figure 4-77.    Flowchart for Determining Electronic Flight Bag Software Application Type

NOTE:  If you wish to print this diagram, A3 size paper must be used.

Figure 4-78.    Principal Operations Inspector Review Checklist

Used by POI for Review of Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) Applications

This section contains questions for use by POIs to review an EFB application. In general, these questions are specific to initial installations and training for a given aircraft. References to other checklists of this document may be helpful in understanding the intent of specific subject areas of this checklist.

Before using this checklist, the POI will review the results of Checklist 1 and Checklist 2 with the operator to ensure that the operator has conducted a complete evaluation of the proposed EFB.

I. GENERAL EFB.

A. General Considerations.

Research if any of the EFB hardware or software is covered by an existing Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG) report.

Workload:
1. Is an in-flight evaluation necessary? (An in-flight evaluation may be necessary if you are not able to adequately evaluate each function intended for this specific operation while on the ground.) If so, verify that the in-flight evaluation confirms that the overall workload is acceptable.
2. Review user/operator responses to evaluation questions for “Workload” from Figure 4-80, Checklist 2—Electronic Flight Bag Operational Evaluation.
3. Verify that procedures are published and available to all EFB users and maintainers.
4. Verify that preflight procedures and checklists are revised to include EFB.
5. Verify that procedures are established for single and dual failure of EFB.

B. Physical Placement.

Design and Placement of Structural Cradle:
1. Verify that user/operator procedures specify locations for both EFB stowage and use.
2. Verify that EFB specified locations do not obstruct visual or physical access to flight controls and/or displays.
3. Verify that EFB locations do not obstruct the emergency egress path.
4. Verify that EFB locations provide for security in flight.
5. Does mounting device have appropriate airworthiness documentation per EFB requirements?
6. Does mounting device lock in position easily?
7. Is the mounting device adjustable enough to accommodate a range of flightcrew member preferences and does range of adjustment accommodate the expected range of user’s physical abilities?
8. Locking mechanisms should be durable enough to minimize slippage after extended periods of normal use.
9. Crashworthiness considerations must be addressed as well as appropriate restraint of EFB when in use.

C. Training/Procedures Considerations.

EFB Documentation and Policy:
1. Verify that written policy adequately addresses each specific EFB application and that any published AEG recommendations have been incorporated into the operator’s EFB program.
2. Verify that procedures are in place to communicate upgrades or malfunctions of EFBs to users in a timely manner.
3. Verify that the EFB information from the manufacturer is incorporated into operating procedures.
EFB Training:
1. Verify that the initial EFB training includes evaluation of knowledge and skill requirements. The training should include demonstration of key tasks.
2. Verify that the recurrent training includes evaluation of proficiency with the EFB.
3. Verify that minimum training, checking, and currency requirements are specified in training programs.
4. Verify that EFB training is customized to EFB applications being used.

D. Validation Phase and Continued Data Collection.

Validation Phase Data Collection:
1. Verify that the 6-month validation phase requires pilots/users of the EFB to document evaluations and that there is a formal process for gathering feedback about the EFB and its performance.
2. Verify that procedures specify personnel responsible for maintenance and database management.
3. Ensure that the operator has an ongoing data collection and feedback/correction process that ensures the suitability/reliability of the data. The data collection processes in place should be factored into the operator’s Safety Management System (SMS).

E. SMS Interface.

1. Verify that the hazards associated with the use and integration of the EFB have been identified, eliminated, or controlled to an acceptable level throughout the life cycle. Consider such hazards as: misuse, hazardous misleading information due to failure or malfunction, loss of information when needed, miscalculation, masking of information, confusion, corruption of data, excessive complexity of use, accidental damage, and human error in use, setup, and operation.
2. Verify that the applicant’s SMS has procedures to mitigate identified hazards availability, and reliability of design, cross‑checking of calculation/data, crew training, and misuse potential.
3. Verify that the applicant’s SMS incorporates EFB hazard analysis, risk assessment, and related safety reports.

F. Software Considerations.

Verify that procedures are established for testing of each software revision or database update prior to operational use.

G. Hardware Considerations.

1. Verify that display lighting and reflectivity has been evaluated for acceptability in each aircraft model.
2. Verify that EFB maintenance procedures are in place for batteries, displays, display interaction devices (pens, etc.), display pixel burnout, and component condition.

II. ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS.

1. Verify that electronic documents are easily accessed and clearly controlled as to revision and currency.
2. Verify that use of electronic documents is incorporated in training program for initial and recurrent.

III. ELECTRONIC CHECKLIST (ECL) SYSTEMS.

1. Verify that the ECL system is customized to aircraft being operated.
2. If checklist is “interactive,” verify that the checklist is subject to a 6-month validation phase.
3. If checklist is “automatically linked,” ensure that AEG involvement and concurrence is obtained.
4. Verify that the use of ECL system is incorporated into the training program for initial and recurrent.

IV. WEIGHT AND BALANCE (W&B)

1. Verify that EFB procedures provide means to comply with load manifest recordkeeping requirements.
2. Verify that procedures clearly identify if the EFB W&B program is for “planning purposes only” when not an approved means for calculating W&B.
3. Verify that the use of W&B is incorporated into the training program for initial and recurrent.

V. FLIGHT PERFORMANCE CALCULATIONS.

1. Verify that EFB procedures provide means to comply with load manifest/flight plan recordkeeping requirements.
2. Verify that procedures clearly identify if EFB aircraft performance program is for “planning purposes only” when not an approved means for calculating aircraft performance.
3. Verify that the use of aircraft performance is incorporated into the training program for initial and recurrent.

VI. ELECTRONIC CHARTS.

1. Verify that the Electronic Charts Application does not display “own-ship position” except on the ground, in compliance with the current edition of AC 20-159, Obtaining Design and Production Approval of Airport Moving Map Display Applications Intended for Electronic Flight Bag Systems.
2. Verify that preflight procedures are established to ensure currency of electronic chart information.
3. Verify EFB display. The screen must be large enough to show an entire instrument approach procedure (IAP) chart at once, with the equivalent degree of legibility and clarity as a paper chart.
4. Verify that the use of electronic charts is incorporated into training program for initial and recurrent.

VII. VALIDATION PHASE.

Verify that procedures are established to collect user data for both normal and abnormal EFB functions during the validation phase and to provide a written report of reliability and problem resolution prior to authorization for paperless operation.

Figure 4-79.    Checklist 1—Tabletop Electronic Flight Bag Evaluation

Checklist 1 contains a list of questions for operators to use during a tabletop evaluation of the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) focusing on the EFB hardware and software applications. The checklist starts with EFB hardware questions, then presents general user interface questions, and ends with specific application questions (if applicable). The checklist is designed so that any question answered as “No” requires a comment that may include, “Not Applicable.”

After the operator has completed this checklist, the results should be documented so the principal operations inspector (POI) can review the results with the operator.

EFB Hardware

1. If the EFB is to be used outside of the flight deck, can the EFB display be read under direct sunlight?

q No

q Yes

2. Is the display brightness and contrast adjustable?

q No

q Yes

3. Is the display brightness acceptable when it adjusts automatically?

q No

q Yes

4. Are there any display artifacts such as jagged lines that impair functionality?

q No

q Yes

5. Are controls labeled appropriately to describe their intended function?

q No

q Yes

6. Are buttons and labels visible and readable under all flight deck illumination conditions?

q No

q Yes

7. Can EFB inputs be made quickly and accurately in any operational environment?

q No

q Yes

8. Does the input device provide sufficient tactile feedback in all environmental conditions?

q No

q Yes

9. Are inadvertent or multiple activation of controls minimized?

q No

q Yes

10. Does the EFB start up in a predictable state?

q No

q Yes

11. Can the EFB be rebooted when power is cut to the EFB?

q No

q Yes

12. Does the EFB function correctly when rebooted?

q No

q Yes

13. Are all the EFB failure modes easy to see and identify?

q No

q Yes

14. Is the failure annunciation/message appropriate for the EFB function that has failed?

q No

q Yes

15. Are EFB recovery means easy to remember and apply when the EFB fails?

q No

q Yes

Provide the Number and a Comment for Each EFB Hardware Question Checked as “No.”

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

 

General User Interface

16. Is the revision information and currency expiration date available and presented clearly?

q No

q Yes

17. Does the device respond immediately to user inputs?

q No

q Yes

18. Is the processing speed always appropriate for normal use?

q No

q Yes

19. Are appropriate busy or progress indicators displayed when processing is delayed?

q No

q Yes

20. Is the user interface, including functions and navigation, consistent throughout the EFB?

q No

q Yes

21. Is all information that is needed displayed and easily accessible? Is there missing or difficult to find information?

q No

q Yes

22. Are common actions and time-critical functions easy to access?

q No

q Yes

23. Are there standard ways to perform common actions?

q No

q Yes

24. Are the displays and controls used on the EFB similar across applications? Are a common set of controls and graphical elements used?

q No

q Yes

25. Can all colors be distinguished under the various lighting conditions?

q No

q Yes

26. Is color coding implemented with a secondary code such as shading or highlighting when used to display critical information?

q No

q Yes

27. Are the colors red and yellow used appropriately only for warnings and cautions?

q No

q Yes

28. Is the text easily readable?

q No

q Yes

29. Do the characters stand out against the display background?

q No

q Yes

30. Are upper case and italic text used infrequently?

q No

q Yes

31. Is text that may be used in low-visibility conditions appropriate in size and easy to read?

q No

q Yes

32. Is it easy to zoom in on text or graphics when they are too small?

q No

q Yes

33. Is it obvious when information is out of view and can it easily be brought into view?

q No

q Yes

34. Is the spacing between characters appropriate?

q No

q Yes

35. Is the vertical spacing between lines appropriate?

q No

q Yes

36. Are icons and symbols legible?

q No

q Yes

37. Are icon and symbol functions obvious?

q No

q Yes

38. Are the icons and symbols distinguishable from one another?

q No

q Yes

39. Is each icon’s meaning explained by a label or other means?

q No

q Yes

40. Are the EFB icons and symbols consistent with their paper equivalents?

q No

q Yes

41. Do EFB alerts and reminders meet the requirements in the appropriate regulations as noted in the current edition of FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 120-76, Guidelines for the Certification, Airworthiness, and Operational Approval of Electronic Flight Bag Computing Devices, paragraph 10 (i.e., The Human Factors Considerations for EFBs)?

q No

q Yes

42. Are alerts and reminders consistent across all applications?

q No

q Yes

43. Are alerts and reminders implemented so as not to distract?

q No

q Yes

44. Is there control over when, and whether, the audio or video is activated?

q No

q Yes

45. Is it easy to reset parameters to their default when they have been customized?

q No

q Yes

46. Is EFB customization controlled through an administrative control process?

q No

q Yes

Provide the Number and a Comment for Each General User Interface Question Checked as “No.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

General Software Applications

47. Can required information be found quickly and accurately within all applications?

q No

q Yes

48. Is the information within applications organized consistently?

q No

q Yes

49. Is information layout consistent with the paper equivalent?

q No

q Yes

50. Is the layout of information appropriate for all applications?

q No

q Yes

51. Is high priority information easy to read?

q No

q Yes

52. Is it easy to tell which application is currently open/active?

q No

q Yes

53. Is it easy to switch between applications?

q No

q Yes

54. Is extra acknowledgement required to open applications that are not flight related?

q No

q Yes

55. Do all open applications function as intended on an individual basis?

q No

q Yes

56. Is access or links to related information appropriately supported?

q No

q Yes

57. Are similar types of information accessed in the same way?

q No

q Yes

58. Is it easy to return to the place where the user started from?

q No

q Yes

59. Is printing supported, and if so, is the hard copy usable?

q No

q Yes

60. Can a portion of a document be selected to be printed?

q No

q Yes

61. Can a print job be terminated immediately?

q No

q Yes

Provide the Number and a Comment for Each General Software Applications Question Checked as “No.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Electronic Documents (If Applicable)

62. Is it easy to tell where one is in relation to the full document?

q No

q Yes

63. Is it easy to move between documents quickly?

q No

q Yes

64. Is it easy to tell what document is currently in view?

q No

q Yes

65. Is there a list of available documents to choose from?

q No

q Yes

66. Is the document search function appropriate?

q No

q Yes

67. Are tables, especially complex ones, readable and usable?

q No

q Yes

68. Are figures readable and usable?

q No

q Yes

Electronic Charts (If Applicable)

69. Is there a way to pre-select specific charts for easy access during a particular flight?

q No

q Yes

70. Is there more than one way to search for a chart?

q No

q Yes

71. Is it easy to access charts when a last minute change is necessary?

q No

q Yes

72. If the chart application uses aircraft location to facilitate access to charts, is this function appropriate (i.e., either approved by Aircraft Certification or explicitly allowed by AC 120-76)?

q No

q Yes

73. Is it easy to switch between a decluttered and normal display if decluttering is supported?

q No

q Yes

74. Is there a clear indication when any chart elements are suppressed?

q No

q Yes

Provide the Number and a Comment for Each Electronic Documents and Charts Question Checked as “No.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Electronic Checklists (ECL) (If Applicable)

75. Are normal checklists available in the appropriate order of use?

q No

q Yes

76. Can checklists be accessed individually for review or reference?

q No

q Yes

77. During non-normal conditions, are relevant checklists easy to access?

q No

q Yes

78. During non-normal conditions, does the device indicate which checklists and/or checklist items are required and which are optional?

q No

q Yes

79. Is it clear where to find all checklists, whether on the EFB or on paper?

q No

q Yes

80. Is the location of a paper document provided when it is referred to by the ECL?

q No

q Yes

81. Does each checklist have a constantly visible title distinct from other checklists?

q No

q Yes

82. Is it easy to select a checklist from a set of open checklists?

q No

q Yes

83. Is there a reminder to review incomplete items when closing an incomplete checklist?

q No

q Yes

84. Can an incomplete checklist be closed after acknowledging it is not complete?

q No

q Yes

85. Does the ECL discourage two or more checklists from being used simultaneously?

q No

q Yes

86. Is progress through the ECL clear?

q No

q Yes

87. It is easy to reset the ECL to start over again?

q No

q Yes

88. Does the checklist provide appropriate reminders for tasks that require a delayed action?

q No

q Yes

89. Does the checklist clearly highlight decision branches?

q No

q Yes

90. Can you return to the checklist from links or related information in one step?

q No

q Yes

91. Is there an indicator of which item in the checklist you are working on?

q No

q Yes

92. Is the checklist’s active item clearly indicated?

q No

q Yes

93. Can the status of an item be easily changed?

q No

q Yes

94. Does the next item automatically become active when the previous one is complete?

q No

q Yes

95. Can the current item be deferred without completing it?

q No

q Yes

96. Is it easy to view other items, even in a long checklist, without changing the active item?

q No

q Yes

97. Is it easy to move between items within a checklist?

q No

q Yes

98. Does the active item change to the next after an item is completed?

q No

q Yes

99. Is there a clear indication that all items as well as the whole checklist are complete when finished?

q No

q Yes

Provide the Number and a Comment for Each ECL Question Checked as “No.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Performance Calculations (If Applicable)

100. Does the device identify entries that have an incorrect format or type and does it generate an appropriate error message?

q No

q Yes

101. Does the error message clarify the type and range of data expected?

q No

q Yes

102. Are units for performance data clearly labeled?

q No

q Yes

103. Do the labels used in the EFB match the language of other operator documents?

q No

q Yes

104. Is all the information necessary for a given task presented together or easily accessible?

q No

q Yes

105. Can the crews modify performance calculations easily, especially when making last minute changes?

q No

q Yes

106. Are outdated results of performance calculations deleted when modifications are entered?

q No

q Yes

107. Does the display and/or crew training provide information to the crew on the assumptions on which the calculations are based?

q No

q Yes

108. Are crews trained to identify and review default values and assumptions about the aircraft status or environmental conditions?

q No

q Yes

109. Are the assumptions made about any calculation as clear to pilots as similar information would be on a tabular chart?

q No

q Yes

Provide the Number and a Comment for Each Performance Calculations Question Checked as “No.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Figure 4-80.    Checklist 2—Electronic Flight Bag Operational Evaluation

Checklist 2 contains a list of questions for operator consideration during an operational evaluation of the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB), its documentation, procedures, and training. The first four pages contain questions that can be answered in a training or operational environment by pilots, instructor/evaluators, or other operational personnel. The last page contains sample crew performance questions that can be addressed in a simulation environment. The checklist is designed such that any question answered as “No” requires a comment that in some cases may be “Not Applicable.”

After the operator has completed this checklist, the principal operations inspector (POI) will review the results with the operator.

General EFB Hardware

1. Is there a backup source in the flight deck for EFB information?

q No

q Yes

2. Is the EFB display readable under all typical flight-deck lighting conditions?

q No

q Yes

3. Does each type of EFB failure have minimum impact to crew tasks and workload?

q No

q Yes

4. Is the EFB installation appropriate for use in high workload phases of flight?

q No

q Yes

5. Are there appropriate Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL)/minimum equipment list (MEL) items to handle EFB failures?

q No

q Yes

6. Have EFB failure items been incorporated into FAA-approved checklists?

q No

q Yes

7. Does the EFB mount allow appropriate access to flight controls and displays?

q No

q Yes

8. Does the EFB mount allow appropriate access to the emergency egress path?

q No

q Yes

9. Are crews able to adjust and lock the EFB for optimal viewing?

q No

q Yes

10. Is there appropriate access to all flight controls during both ground and in-flight operations when the EFB is positioned for optimal viewing?

q No

q Yes

11. Is there appropriate room to manipulate the EFB controls and to view its display?

q No

q Yes

12. Are all EFB hardware components that are routinely used easy to access?

q No

q Yes

13. Are the EFB hardware components usable and suitably durable for the flight deck?

q No

q Yes

Provide the Number and a Comment for Each General EFB Hardware Question Checked as “No.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Stowage (If Applicable)

14. Is there a stowage area for the EFB?

q No

q Yes

15. Is the stowage securing mechanism simple to operate?

q No

q Yes

16. Is the stowage securing mechanism unobtrusive when not in use?

q No

q Yes

17. Does the stowage system allow appropriate access to flight controls/displays and egress routes?

q No

q Yes

18. Is the design of the stowage area acceptable?

q No

q Yes

19. Can the EFB be moved easily to and from the stowage area without blocking access to flight displays/controls?

q No

q Yes

20. Are the device and/or the stowage area unlikely to be damaged under normal use?

q No

q Yes

Unsecured EFB (If Applicable)

21. Is there appropriate access to flight controls/displays when the unsecured EFB is in use?

q No

q Yes

22. Is there an acceptable place to put an unsecured EFB when in use?

q No

q Yes

23. Is there an acceptable place to put an unsecured EFB when not in use?

q No

q Yes

24. Can the kneeboard EFB be positioned such that the pilot has full control authority?

q No

q Yes

25. Is the kneeboard EFB comfortable for the pilot to wear under normal conditions?

q No

q Yes

Provide the Number and a Comment for Each Stowage and Unsecured EFB Question Checked as “No.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

General User Interface

26. Is the workload using the EFB the same or less than the current process?

q No

q Yes

27. Is the workload acceptable when there is an EFB failure?

q No

q Yes

28. Are other than critical EFB messages inhibited during high workload phases of flight?

q No

q Yes

29. Is the EFB user interface consistent with other flight deck systems?

q No

q Yes

30. Does the EFB use terms, icons, colors and symbols consistent with other flight deck systems?

q No

q Yes

Software Applications

31. Is the workload acceptable when configuring electronic charts while flying a procedure?

q No

q Yes

32. Does using the electronic checklist (ECL) produce the same crew actions that using the paper equivalent would?

q No

q Yes

Provide the Number and a Comment for Each User Interface and Application Question Checked as “No.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

EFB Procedures

33. Are there procedures for starting up and shutting down the EFB?

q No

q Yes

34. Are there appropriate procedures for all the EFB failure modes?

q No

q Yes

35. Are there EFB procedures for when other aircraft system failures could render the EFB unusable?

q No

q Yes

36. Are there procedures for using EFB backup information?

q No

q Yes

37. Are there procedures to mitigate EFB workload?

q No

q Yes

38. Are there procedures for establishing which source of information is primary?

q No

q Yes

39. Are there appropriate procedures for using EFB in high workload phases of flight?

q No

q Yes

40. Are there procedures that specify what data to use when data is redundant or different form the EFB?

q No

q Yes

41. Are there procedures for removal of a kneeboard EFB during emergency landing or egress (If Applicable)?

q No

q Yes

Provide the Number and a Comment for Each EFB Procedures Question Checked as “No.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Procedures for Keeping EFB Content/Data Current

42. Are there procedures to ensure data is accurate and current for each software application?

q No

q Yes

43. Are changes to content/data appropriately documented?

q No

q Yes

44. Are there procedures to notify crews of EFB updates?

q No

q Yes

45. Are there procedures to ensure that the correct information is installed when EFBs use information that is specific to the aircraft type or tail number?

q No

q Yes

46. Are operational control procedures consistent with regulations concerning preventative maintenance?

q No

q Yes

47. Is there a procedure to avoid corruption/errors during changes to the EFB device?

q No

q Yes

48. Is there a procedure to ensure that all EFBs have the appropriate content/data installed when there are multiple EFBs on the flight deck?

q No

q Yes

49. Is there a procedure to ensure that EFB data in use is approved for use in flight?

q No

q Yes

50. Is there a procedure for when the database is not approved for use in flight?

q No

q Yes

51. Is there a procedure to ensure that all customized values are cleared from the EFB?

q No

q Yes

Procedures for User Feedback

52. Is there a procedure for EFB users to provide feedback?

q No

q Yes

53. Is there a procedure for the operator to monitor feedback, correct EFB deficiencies, and/or notify the EFB manufacturer?

q No

q Yes

54. Are there procedures or built-in limits that prevent defining customized color schemes that conflict with flight deck color conventions?

q No

q Yes

55. Is there a policy regarding the use of supplemental audio and/or video in flight?

q No

q Yes

56. Is the EFB audio set to minimize any interference with higher priority communications?

q No

q Yes

Procedures for Specific Applications (If Applicable)

57. Are there specific policy/procedures for using the electronic charts application?

q No

q Yes

58. Does the policy specify what other EFB applications can be used while a procedure using the electronic charts is actively being flown?

q No

q Yes

59. Are there procedures on how to use the electronic charts when the EFB uses aircraft status data to configure chart elements?

q No

q Yes

60. Are there procedures to ensure that navigation/approach charts required for the flight are installed and available?

q No

q Yes

61. Is there a procedure to identify the controlling copy of Weight and Balance (W&B)?

q No

q Yes

62. Is there a procedure to establish responsibility for completion of W&B software?

q No

q Yes

63. Are there procedures to maintain required W&B records?

q No

q Yes

64. Is there a procedure to ensure that EFB performance data can be stored outside the EFB?

q No

q Yes

Provide the Number and a Comment for Each of the above EFB Procedure Question Checked as “No.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

EFB Training

65. Are there appropriate EFB training, checking, and currency requirements?

q No

q Yes

66. Does the EFB training program address all EFB intended functions and applications?

q No

q Yes

67. Is there training on how to use unique features of the software applications?

q No

q Yes

68. Are crews proficient on the EFB at the completion of EFB training?

q No

q Yes

69. Is EFB training customized for new users?

q No

q Yes

70. Is the manufacturer’s EFB documentation sufficient?

q No

q Yes

71. Does the EFB training device provide an appropriate degree of fidelity when the actual EFB is not used?

q No

q Yes

72. Does the EFB training device simulate the key aspects of the task?

q No

q Yes

73. Does the EFB training appropriately address the meaning of icons and symbols?

q No

q Yes

Training for Charts (If Applicable)

74. Is training on the use of electronic charts appropriate?

q No

q Yes

75. Is there training on unique features of the electronic charts?

q No

q Yes

76. Is there training on differences in map scale, orientation, and data quality between the electronic charts and other flight deck displays?

q No

q Yes

77. Is there training on the limitations of own aircraft position when it is displayed?

q No

q Yes

78. Is there training on policies pertaining to use of the electronic charts?

q No

q Yes

79. Can crews use the electronic charts as well as paper charts?

q No

q Yes

80. Can crews use the electronic charts to orient themselves and track their progress as they fly required procedures?

q No

q Yes

Training for ECL Systems (If Applicable)

81. Is there appropriate training on how to use ECLs?

q No

q Yes

82. Is there training on how to use unique features of the ECLs (e.g., how the EFB indicates that a checklist item has been deferred)?

q No

q Yes

83. Is there training on which checklists are supported electronically and which are not?

q No

q Yes

84. Is there training on the limitations of ECL automation when it uses aircraft status data?

q No

q Yes

Training for Flight Performance Calculations (If Applicable)

85. Is there appropriate training on how and when to use the flight performance application?

q No

q Yes

86. Is there training on critical performance calculation assumptions (e.g., runway length, W&B)?

q No

q Yes

87. Is there training to review default values for aircraft status and environmental conditions?

q No

q Yes

88. Is there training on how to enter information required by the performance software?

q No

q Yes

89. Is there training on how to interpret and use results of the flight performance calculations?

q No

q Yes

90. Is there training on where to obtain values when their normal sources are not available?

q No

q Yes

91. Is there training on coordinating the roles of dispatchers and flightcrews?

q No

q Yes

Provide the Number and a Comment for Each Training Question Checked as “No.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Crew Performance: Preflight Planning

Do crews with the EFB perform as well or better than crews with paper documents when—

 

 

92. Calculating aircraft W&B, takeoff, climb, and maneuvering speeds?

q No

q Yes

93. Crews maintain critical data for immediate reference?

q No

q Yes

94. There is a runway change and a need to reference deicing fluid requirements or an MEL item?

q No

q Yes

95. There are time critical adjustments prior to block out/taxi and takeoff?

q No

q Yes

Crew Performance: Takeoff

Do crews with the EFB perform as well or better than crews with paper documents when—

 

 

96. There is a takeoff on a runway that requires briefing a special operator engine-out procedure?

q No

q Yes

97. There is complex Standard Instrument Departure (SID) with an abnormal or an emergency during the departure climb-out?

q No

q Yes

98. There is an emergency that requires a return to the departure or alternate departure airport?

q No

q Yes

99. One EFB fails, requiring one pilot to rely on the EFB of the other pilot immediately after takeoff?

q No

q Yes

Provide the Number and a Comment for Each Preflight and Takeoff Question Checked as “No.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Crew Performance: Cruise

Do crews with the EFB perform as well or better than crews with paper documents when—

 

 

100. There is an engine failure/fire with possible condition of destination below weather minimums?

q No

q Yes

101. There is electrical smoke in the cockpit requiring use of smoke mask/goggles while completing checklists or using EFB for approach briefing?

q No

q Yes

Crew Performance: Descent

Do crews with the EFB perform as well or better than crews with paper documents when—

 

 

102. There are conditions that require reference to Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (SMGCS) taxi routing or a complex clearance?

q No

q Yes

103. Reported runway conditions require reference to operational limitations?

q No

q Yes

Crew Performance: Approach/Landing

Do crews with the EFB perform as well or better than crews with paper documents when—

 

 

104. There is runway change or the need to re-compute landing weight and V speeds during approach?

q No

q Yes

105. There are poor weather conditions or airports with complex taxi routes?

q No

q Yes

106. There is a request for a specific taxiway turn during rollout after landing?

q No

q Yes

Crew Performance: Destination Ground Operations

Do crews with the EFB perform as well or better than crews with paper documents when—

 

 

107. There is an EFB partial failure or erroneous output requiring maintenance discrepancy to be entered?

q No

q Yes

Provide the Number and a Comment for Each Crew Performance Question Checked as “No.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Figure 4-81.    Evaluation Report Information Template

This outline is used by the user/operator to ensure that the minimum content requirements of the evaluation report have been met. The format of the report is optional, however the information below must have been included, as a minimum:

1.    Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) evaluation identified by EFB make/model and aircraft make/model.

2.    The manufacturer’s name and model number of the mounting system evaluated.

3.    EFB location and stowage suitability.

4.    EFB display lighting and reflectivity.

5.    Suitability of procedures for EFB use during all phases of flight.

6.    Suitability of procedures to follow when one unit fails and when both units fail to include alternate means of accessing data.

7.    A revision process procedure/method that ensures appropriate database accuracy and currency.

8.    Training effectiveness and typical acceptable training course completion.

9.    Usability of each application (for example):

a.    Electronic documents’ functional suitability;
b.    Aircraft performance, Weight and Balance (W&B), and speeds reference functional suitability; and
c.    Electronic charts’ functional suitability.

10.    Usability of multiple applications at one time.

11.    Crew workload and currency for proficient use.

12.    Effectiveness of procedures that govern the distribution of application software updates to the aircraft and confirmation of the aircraft EFB configuration.

13.    Flight report—when and how reports of malfunctions or anomalies are reported and resolved.

Figure 4-82.    Checklist 4—Electronic Flight Bag Line Evaluation Job Aid

USED FOR DATA COLLECTION DURING VALIDATION PERIOD

This tool provides a starting point for Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) line operations evaluations. The questions are primarily designed to aid the principal operations inspector (POI) but may also be useful to the operator for the collection of a structured set of observations about the use of the EFB before and during the 6-month validation phase. Use of this tool can be customized as appropriate for the situation. This is a final check to ensure that there are no problems with the EFB design/interface, training, or procedures prior to the authorization for use.

The questions below encompass the operations and safety evaluation. In cases where a system shows weaknesses or limitations, mitigations must be developed in consultation with the applicant.

In some cases, an EFB may add to the complexity of flight operations. The key questions to be answered are:

1)    Can the flight be conducted as safely with an EFB as with the methods/products it is intended to replace?

2)    Does the EFB add an unacceptable level of complexity for any critical activity or phase of flight?

In order to answer these questions, it is helpful to consider more specific aspects of EFB usage, which are covered in Sections II through V below. Space is also provided in Section I to record general notes about the system and the evaluation.

I. Describe system configuration description and flight conditions:

 

II. Overview. The main aspects to be assessed are encompassed by the following questions:

1.

Was training adequate to ensure that the pilot(s) could perform in a safe and efficient manner?

·  Were individual pilot knowledge and skills adequate to allow normal coordinated flight deck activities?

·  Was pilot knowledge regarding observed software applications adequate?

No   Yes

2.

Are adequate procedures in place to ensure that the EFB is integrated into the crew’s/operator’s system (e.g., normal and abnormal/emergency operations and maintenance functions)?

No   Yes

3.

Was the EFB hardware or software adequate and appropriate during the flight? If there were any problems, particularly in a critical phase of flight, describe in the notes space below.

No   Yes

4.

Could the pilot(s) recover from usage errors without undue distraction or discussions? If usage errors were frequent or a distraction, describe in notes below.

No   Yes

5.

Was the workload required for completing a task with the EFB equal to or less than the workload for completing the task with the conventional method? If no, specify phase of flight and task for any marginal or unacceptable increases in workload in notes space below.

No   Yes

Describe any problems noted as “No” above:

 

III. General.

6.

Was each pilot able to use the cursor, track ball, touch screen, etc., for menu and functionality without frequent errors?

No   Yes

7.

Was the device appropriate and operational when exposed to environmental factors (e.g., turbulence, cold weather, vibration)?

No   Yes

8.

Was the device free of significant limitations in regard to display (e.g., off-axis view angles or various different lighting conditions)?

·  The device had easy and adequate dimming functions in low light (nighttime) conditions?

·  The device was adequately backlit and/or was viewable by flight deck lighting in low-light (nighttime) conditions?

·  The device was clearly visible in bright sunlight conditions?

No   Yes

9.

Was the device display clear (adequate resolution)? Confirm that the display was never misinterpreted because of viewing limitations. If so, record issues in notes space below.

No   Yes

10.

Did the pilot(s) ensure proper stowage and security (i.e., between flights, etc.) of the EFB per standard operating procedures (SOP)? Temperature limitations acknowledged?

No   Yes

11.

Does the display continue to be usable after prolonged use in the flight deck environment (if applicable)?

No   Yes

12.

Normal functions (e.g., shutdown, startup) are adequate and do not require undue pilot attention or concern?

No   Yes

13.

Were procedures adequate for identifying currency of EFB data?

No   Yes

14.

Could the pilot(s) easily find and use required items and functions?

No   Yes

15.

Were the abbreviations and/or icons easy to understand?

No Yes

16.

If multiple applications are supported, could the pilot(s) easily switch between critical applications?

No   Yes

17.

If critical (e.g., abnormal or emergency checklists) applications are authorized in the EFB configuration basis, is their use at least equal to or better than previously approved methods?

No   Yes

                 N/A

18.

The time to complete normal tasks was appropriate.

No   Yes

19.

The audio features did not cause pilot distraction and/or were adjustable and appropriate for the flight deck environment.

No   Yes

                 N/A

Describe any problems noted as “No” above:

 

IV. Electronic Charts, Documents, and Checklists.

20.

Were all necessary documents (including charts, checklists, and manuals) found, identified, and easily viewed by the pilot(s) without undue distraction?

No   Yes

21.

Was information contained in electronic charts, documents, and checklists complete, equal in quality to previously provided products, and easily accessible and understandable?

No   Yes

22.

Was pilot knowledge of chart/document/checklist selection and viewing adequate?

No   Yes

23.

Could the pilot(s) easily rearrange content on the screen to meet needs (e.g., by zooming, panning, or otherwise customizing the view)?

No   Yes

24.

If printers are used, are printouts acceptable?

No Yes

25.

Did the pilot(s) exhibit adequate knowledge of EFB functions to efficiently brief and fly required procedures?

No   Yes

26.

Did the pilot(s) exhibit adequate knowledge of the software revision process procedure/method that ensures appropriate database accuracy and currency?

No   Yes

27.

Did the pilot(s) exhibit adequate knowledge of contingency procedures?
In the event of a failure of a single device.
In the event that both devices fail.

No   Yes

28.

Were both pilots able to monitor necessary electronic chart displays during critical phases of flight?

No   Yes

29.

Did the EFB allow quick entry of updates for last minute changes (e.g., flight plan/runway changes)?

No   Yes

30.

For electronic checklists (ECL), was it easy to track completed items?

No   Yes

                 N/A

Describe any problems noted as “No” above:

 

V. Flight Performance Data/Calculations.

31.

Could the pilot(s) interpret and use flight performance data/calculations efficiently and accurately?

No   Yes

                 N/A

32.

Did the device allow quick entry of updates for last minute changes (e.g., flight plan/runway changes)?

No   Yes

                 N/A

33.

In the event that the Weight and Balance (W&B) and/or performance calculation software is not approved by the Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), all crewmembers are aware of the software’s limitations and understand that only approved calculation methods may be used as a primary means of computation.

No   Yes

                 N/A

Describe any problems noted as “No” above:

 

VI. General Conclusions.

34.

Were any unique safety issues or events caused or exacerbated by using the EFB during this evaluation?

No   Yes

35.

Can the flight be conducted as safely with an EFB as with the methods/products it is intended to replace?

No   Yes

36.

Does the EFB add an unacceptable level of complexity for any critical activity or phase of flight?

No   Yes

Assigned Aircraft: ___________ Date: ______ Print Observer Name:____________________

Observer Signature: ________________________ Certificate Number: __________________

RESERVED. Paragraphs 4-1650 through 4-1665.