FlyQ

[KLRDMD]

I just got off the phone with Seattle Avionics renewing my FlyQ subscription. You may know that they give CFIs and primary students FlyQ for $19/year. The guy I was talking with wanted to make sure I knew that primary students qualified for the $19/year rate too. I said I know that but I don't teach any primary students. He said that advanced students (anyone working on a new rating, certificate, etc.) qualify for a 50% discount too. That's not on their web site anywhere. They get FlyQ for $69/year versus $139/year. I don't know what they require as proof of you wonrking on an advanced rating (can you be an IFR student for 4 years) so you would have to ask them but certainly you would get the first year for 50%. Maybe you can be a commercial student this year, instrument student next year, multi student the next year . . .

I use a lot of different apps and FlyQ has always been one of the top ones for me. I'm going to try to see if I can make it my primary app as it is the only one that can use my Avidyne 550 as the GPS position source with flight plan transfers and has Mexico charts.

I really like iFly GPS and it has Mexico charts but requires an external ADS-B box and I'm trying to cut down on cockpit clutter. 

https://seattleavionics.com/FlyQEFB.aspx

[mike_elliott]

And Seattle Avionics has donated 1 lifetime FlyQ Subscription and 2 ea. 1 year FlyQ subscriptions to the Mooney Summit VI's raffle! Thanks John! Thanks Seattle Avionics!

[mooniacX]

I use FlyQ as well. I really like it and can't recommend it enough!

 

[VetRepp]

Ditto,  I switched a while back and glad I did. (They don't seem to nickle and dime like Foreflight)

I just wish (FLYQ are you listening) They'd incorporate Jepp charts, so I can get rid of the terrible and very buggy Jeppveiw

[midlifeflyer]

I personally find  FlyQ a bit weak for IFR, but highly recommend it for VFR pilots because of the excellent taxi diagrams ForeFlight charges extra for.

Edited September 26, 2018 by midlifeflyer

[jaylw314]

12 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

I personally find  FlyQ a bit weak for IFR, but highly recommend it for VFR pilots because of the excellent taxi diagrams ForeFlight charges extra for.

Consider Avare--completely free, and it can automatically open up airport diagrams for you on landing.  It also has vector taxi/road diagrams for every airport, not just the ones with diagrams in the Chart Supplement.

[KLRDMD]

12 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

Consider Avare--completely free, and it can automatically open up airport diagrams for you on landing.  It also has vector taxi/road diagrams for every airport, not just the ones with diagrams in the Chart Supplement.

But that's a no-go for those of us using iOS and don't want to buy new hardware and learn a new OS.

[flight2000]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

I personally find  FlyQ a bit weak for IFR, but highly recommend it for VFR pilots because of the excellent taxi diagrams ForeFlight charges extra for.

Curious to hear what you find lacking about it?  Genuinely curious, not busting your flight bag...  

I use it for IFR all the time and don't know what I may be missing.

Thanks!

Brian

[midlifeflyer]

13 hours ago, flight2000 said:

Curious to hear what you find lacking about it?  Genuinely curious, not busting your flight bag...  

I use it for IFR all the time and don't know what I may be missing.

Thanks!

Brian

The chances are you are missing nothing. Most things about personal preferences is, well, personal. For me, 7 years of ForeFlight has made the flow of both preflight planning and in flight use so natural, even those I like better for certain things won't replace it for IFR. You would probably feel the opposite.

if I had to point out one personal annoyance in FlyQ it would be what-if planning. Putting a route in the FlyQ map page search box, even just two airports,  brings you directly to the flight plan page and generates a route. I don't want that. Ever. I want to see the two points on the map and work from there. I guess it goes back to the time when FF and WingX were the only two and wags could comment FF was stronger for planning and WingX stinger in flight.

 

Edited September 27, 2018 by midlifeflyer

[midlifeflyer]

14 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

Consider Avare--completely free, and it can automatically open up airport diagrams for you on landing.  It also has vector taxi/road diagrams for every airport, not just the ones with diagrams in the Chart Supplement.

So do ForeFlight and FlyQ. IFlyGPS does a similar thing with its RealView charts. Others too.

On the rest, personal preference again. I have a total of about a dozen EFBs roughly divided between iOS and Android. I never could get into Avare. 

[flight2000]

23 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

The chances are you are missing nothing. Most things about personal preferences is, well, personal. For me, 7 years of ForeFlight has made the flow of both preflight planning and in flight use so natural, even those I like better for certain things won't replace it for IFR. You would probably feel the opposite.

if I had to point out one personal annoyance in FlyQ it would be what-if planning. Putting a route in the FlyQ map page search box, even just two airports,  brings you directly to the flight plan page and generates a route. I don't want that. Ever. I want to see the two points on the map and work from there. I guess it goes back to the time when FF and WingX were the only two and wags could comment FF was stronger for planning and WingX stinger in flight.

 

Thanks!  I was hoping I wasn't missing anything.  Tracking the rest and that last piece annoys me as well, but the extra step to get back to the map hasn't gotten me to the level of jumping ship yet.    

They're latest update now puts tail numbers against ADSB traffic.  That is nice and I no longer have to ping the NGT9000 for that information.  You can even enter specific tail numbers and they will highlight those in a different color if they are in the area.  Could see how that would be helpful for flight instructors if they have students in the air at the same time.  Kind of like spying on them...  

Cheers,

Brian 

[Oscar M20E]

I just got an email from Seattle Avionics with a coupon code for $100 off their IFR+VFR yearly subscription ($39.99 total). It said to share it so here you go:
 

https://seattleavionics.com/eCommerce/Buy1.aspx?CouponCode=EFB3920180927lt

I've been using flyQ for years now and can't say enough good things about it.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Oscar M20E

[gsxrpilot]

I have a lifetime subscription for FlyQ but I also find that for IFR I prefer ForeFlight. I also have flown a bit outside the US and aspire to do more of that. ForeFlight is much more capable crossing the boarder.  Consequently I continue to pay for ForeFlight... I also like the FF log book.

[Oscar M20E]

4 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I have a lifetime subscription for FlyQ but I also find that for IFR I prefer ForeFlight. I also have flown a bit outside the US and aspire to do more of that. ForeFlight is much more capable crossing the boarder.  Consequently I continue to pay for ForeFlight... I also like the FF log book.

@gsxrpilot I'm currently working on my IFR rating and would be interested to hear why you prefer FF over FlyQ for IFR.

FlyQ has Mexican VFR charts and Geo-referenced Mexican and central american approach plates/diagrams, is there something else that FF offers to cross the border?

A log book would be great to have in FlyQ...

 

[flight2000]

Got an email from Seattle Avionics yesterday that they are upgrading to animated weather (radar images) with the next release.  I've been waiting for something like that to help see which way the weather is moving, even if it is a slightly delayed ADSB source.

Brian

[Matt W]

32 minutes ago, Oscar M20E said:

@gsxrpilot I'm currently working on my IFR rating and would be interested to hear why you prefer FF over FlyQ for IFR.

FlyQ has Mexican VFR charts and Geo-referenced Mexican and central american approach plates/diagrams, is there something else that FF offers to cross the border?

A log book would be great to have in FlyQ...

 

As long as you start Q before taxi, it will record the entire flight if you choose that option. I am in the beta group and a life member IFR/VFR.  I found FlyQ through Aspen on a different airplane. N79339 has G500 and Garmin Charts option with AKUQUIK airport data. NACA charts in both. 

I am considering flight stream 510 if Seattle goes that way to modernize my 530/430W boxes.

 Enroute start up has raised its ugly head again.

I will never change for my personal flights  through. Two touch logic is supreme. Seattle needs your feedback and is easy to give via the support email link . Auto generates the email with the bug log. Downloads and updates are much quicker in the new version. 

I do not like cords, mounts or clutter in the airplane. It is easy to refrence the ipad like a chart and stow or knee board. I find myself using VR on the iphone to pick up airports in VFR quicker. Simply amazing it runs on both with the same functionality.

 

 

 

[KLRDMD]

2 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

I have a lifetime subscription for FlyQ but I also find that for IFR I prefer ForeFlight. I also have flown a bit outside the US and aspire to do more of that. ForeFlight is much more capable crossing the boarder.  Consequently I continue to pay for ForeFlight... I also like the FF log book.

How is ForeFlight better than FlyQ for international flights ? I'm not a ForeFlight user so I have no ideas of it's current capabilities.

[gsxrpilot]

1 hour ago, Oscar M20E said:

@gsxrpilot I'm currently working on my IFR rating and would be interested to hear why you prefer FF over FlyQ for IFR.

FlyQ has Mexican VFR charts and Geo-referenced Mexican and central american approach plates/diagrams, is there something else that FF offers to cross the border?

A log book would be great to have in FlyQ...

 

I'm sure it's mostly a situation where you like what you know best. And I've been using FF for a few years and know it well.

But I find that FlyQ works great for planning and creating flight plans when I'm sitting at my desk. But FF seems to be much easier to use in the cockpit. I like to be able to add waypoints and then drag and drop them and move them around in the route while still on the map view. When ATC gives me an amendment to my route, and I get the waypoints in the wrong order, it's super easy to fix them just dragging them around and I'm still on the map view. I also like the graphical description of procedures. It makes it super easy to either plan or anticipate a STAR or SID.

I see that FlyQ has added stuff for south of the border, but don't see anything for north of the border yet. 

[gsxrpilot]

7 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

How is ForeFlight better than FlyQ for international flights ? I'm not a ForeFlight user so I have no ideas of it's current capabilities.

FF has basic airport data and allows flight planning to any airport in the world

You can buy the Canada addition that adds full capability for Canada.

[Stephen]

On 9/26/2018 at 4:26 PM, KLRDMD said:

But that's a no-go for those of us using iOS and don't want to buy new hardware and learn a new OS.

I just seitched over to Samsung/Android after many years on IOS and Apple everything .... it is not in the least a trivial switch for a heavy iphone app user.

But Apple's slowing my $1K iphone down so it is practically unusable finally pissed me off enough to jump off the moving iphone train.  Still use iPads/Forflight and a Mac but no more iPhones 

[M016576]

22 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

 

But I find that FlyQ works great for planning and creating flight plans when I'm sitting at my desk. But FF seems to be much easier to use in the cockpit. I like to be able to add waypoints and then drag and drop them and move them around in the route while still on the map view. When ATC gives me an amendment to my route, and I get the waypoints in the wrong order, it's super easy to fix them just dragging them around and I'm still on the map view. I also like the graphical description of procedures. It makes it super easy to either plan or anticipate a STAR or SID.

I’m pretty sure you can do what your describing in FlyQ- just “grab” the point you want to move, wait a potato, then slide it around the map until you find the spot you want to move it to.  If there is something to latch the new point to (an airfield, tacan, etc) it will pop up the options to latch to, otherwise, just select “waypoint” and it will create a new waypoint in space.  Give it a try, and let me know if that’s what you were talking about.

I like flyq for IFR flight over foreflight and garmin’s app because everything seems intuitive to me to access- and all the options I like are only one tap deep.  The ONLY thing I wish was easier was displaying a STAR- which is done through the “procedures” tab on any airport serviced by said STAR.  Luckily- I only fly them 4-5 times a year, and tend to “know they are coming”

 

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by M016576

[gsxrpilot]

17 minutes ago, M016576 said:

I’m pretty sure you can do what your describing in FlyQ- just “grab” the point you want to move, wait a potato, then slide it around the map until you find the spot you want to move it to.  If there is something to latch the new point to (an airfield, tacan, etc) it will pop up the options to latch to, otherwise, just select “waypoint” and it will create a new waypoint in space.  Give it a try, and let me know if that’s what you were talking about.

I like flyq for IFR flight over foreflight and garmin’s app because everything seems intuitive to me to access- and all the options I like are only one tap deep.  The ONLY thing I wish was easier was displaying a STAR- which is done through the “procedures” tab on any airport serviced by said STAR.  Luckily- I only fly them 4-5 times a year, and tend to “know they are coming”

Yeah, I'm familiar with how it works. And it does work. I guess I just prefer the FF methodology. It probably comes down to preferring what you know. As I was trying to learn FlyQ and get comfortable with it, I always seemed to grab the wrong option. For example, I would more often then not, get a user defined "waypoint" instead of the airport. I know slowing down and being more deliberate with my pointing and touching... but then it was not super intuitive to undo what I'd just done wrong.

I often fly into the DFW Bravo and always get a STAR/SID, but it's almost never the same one, and there are lots of them. But listening to Approach on the way there, I can usually predict which I'll get based on what the flows/winds/conditions are and what ForeFlight shows me.

I would like to like FlyQ better just because of pricing... maybe I will someday.

[M016576]

3 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Yeah, I'm familiar with how it works. And it does work. I guess I just prefer the FF methodology. It probably comes down to preferring what you know. As I was trying to learn FlyQ and get comfortable with it, I always seemed to grab the wrong option. For example, I would more often then not, get a user defined "waypoint" instead of the airport. I know slowing down and being more deliberate with my pointing and touching... but then it was not super intuitive to undo what I'd just done wrong.

I often fly into the DFW Bravo and always get a STAR/SID, but it's almost never the same one, and there are lots of them. But listening to Approach on the way there, I can usually predict which I'll get based on what the flows/winds/conditions are and what ForeFlight shows me.

I would like to like FlyQ better just because of pricing... maybe I will someday.

Like you, I have the life time subscription on FlyQ- I abandoned foreflight when they went to a subscription model back in ‘09 (out of principal... but that’s another story!).  Love the one you’re with, right?

It’s served me well, and it only gets better (FlyQ).  But much of these EFB’s come down to training, understanding the system, and personal preference (just like Avidyne vs garmin, etc etc). At the end of the day, the best system is the one that works for the pilot using it safely and reliably in a consistent manner.  And that can be different for each of us.

[gsxrpilot]

1 hour ago, M016576 said:

Like you, I have the life time subscription on FlyQ- I abandoned foreflight when they went to a subscription model back in ‘09 (out of principal... but that’s another story!).  Love the one you’re with, right?

It’s served me well, and it only gets better (FlyQ).  But much of these EFB’s come down to training, understanding the system, and personal preference (just like Avidyne vs garmin, etc etc). At the end of the day, the best system is the one that works for the pilot using it safely and reliably in a consistent manner.  And that can be different for each of us.

I'll throw one more maybe minor benefit in FF's favor for me. They're based in Austin and I'm friends with and fly with several of the guys who work there. There are a few features/improvements that I pointed out to my friends over beers after flying... that pretty quickly showed up in the product. It's a relationship worth supporting for me.

[MoonFlyer68]

Reviving a bit of an old topic here.  With the acquisition of Foreflight by Boeing, I am sure we all saw that Seattle Avionics is offering FlyQ for $39.99 for the first year.  In my mind at that price I might as well try it for a year and who knows after that.  I was using the Performance plus package in Foreflight that has detailed aircraft performance for fuel planning and such.  I am looking in FlyQ and all I see is in the setup menu under aircraft a place to put climb, cruise, and descent speeds and fuel burn.  Is that all there is?  Is there no consideration for cruising level?  What do you guys that have FlyQ use for these numbers?  I have a 1968 F, anyone else in a similar plane care to share your numbers with me that you use?  Unfortunately I am still very new to my plane and do not even have a fuel flow gauge yet (being installed during annual).

Thanks

Edited March 12, 2019 by MilitaryAV8R