|
^^ What he said^^
|
I completely agree that there are issues with Mission+ that need to be resolved, but I fail to see how some are getting to adjectives like poor, horrible, unsafe etc
|
Originally Posted by DLDude
(Post 3679480)
I would not use the term scraping. Oaknotes directly reads the XML data that Mission+ uses. One could argue that the XML data is the true source document and Mission+ and Oaknotes both display this XML source data. The Oak Notes code was visible and available for inspection. Having seen some of the Mission+ errors in SkyHub, I would have more faith in Oaknotes. While not a safety item, Mission+ cannot even calculate the correct times for Enroute Information -> Key Info/Activities during flight.
The accusation was made that Oaknotes hides data. The specific complaint was that Oaknotes was graying out notams were it interpreted the NOTAM to be irrelevant due to the date/time. However, Oaknotes still showed the NOTAM in gray font should the interpretation be incorrect. There is a discussion on SkyHub. Speaking of hiding information, one of my pet peeves is how Mission+ behaves if you have two alternates, the second alternate does not show up in the FDRA, Flight Information or fuel planning. You can only find the second alternate in In Flight -> Final Alternates or clicking on All Alternates in the dashboard to get to Final Alternates. Oak Notes is good. However, the big picture is that Oak Notes was popular because Mission+ is such poor quality. |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 3679526)
I'm not defending M+. It had serious shortcomings. I'm just saying why I think Delta lawyers don't like it. And that's because exactly what you say. A team of people are supposed to QC M+ when changes are made before it's released to the pilots to ensure M+ is displaying the correct information. Delta has no control over Oaknotes which, whether we like it or not, is a liability to them.
|
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 3679518)
I completely agree that there are issues with Mission+ that need to be resolved, but I fail to see how some are getting to adjectives like poor, horrible, unsafe etc
|
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 3679518)
I completely agree that there are issues with Mission+ that need to be resolved, but I fail to see how some are getting to adjectives like poor, horrible, unsafe etc
|
The biggest gripe I would say most people have with M+ is the fact that we have 69 "future updates" that should have been already implemented when released to the pilot group as a whole. If even the majority of that list was already part of the main rollout to the pilots, you would probably see a lot less frustration (still complaining, cause you know we are pilots)....It really is unsat how it was rolled out and taken so long to get basic stuff that should be a necessity.
Mongo |
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 3679534)
Logging you out during descent below FL180 into a major hub, or any airport for that matter, doesn’t qualify as unsafe?
Secondly it takes 2 secs to log back in via Face ID. Nevertheless a fix for that issue that appears to be F500 related is on the way |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 3679569)
1st off, I'm referencing charts on descent into a major airport. Anything from the flight plan that is pertinent would be covered in the approach briefing, including fuel state I the event of a go around.
Secondly it takes 2 secs to log back in via Face ID. Nevertheless a fix for that issue that appears to be F500 related is on the way #pig |
Mission + is the type of product you get when you have flight ops leadership who aren’t pilots and don’t fly who approved its design. The app is awful.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:28 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands