Gets the right answers, faster than I do  
By: Qov - 9-Oct-2009
Version: 1.3
It's easy to use, easy to see what it did, and the results match exactly those calculated from the CAP GEN table including rounding up to the nearest 100s above the MDA and no rounding at the MDAs.
It would be nice if there were an option for a couple more altitudes, so you don't have to go back and reuse the squares if you have lots of step-down altitudes, e.g. the DME arc to the 13R LOC(BC)/NDB/DME at YXY. Okay maybe it doesn't need THAT many squares, but it is an example of how many one might need.

Works for  
By: Love the Apps - 2-Jan-2009
Version: 1.3
The developer says it was updated weeks ago to fix that problem... it's working perfectly for me.

Works for  
By: Love the Apps - 2-Jan-2009
Version: 1.3
The developer says it was updated weeks ago to fix that problem... it's working perfectly for me.

Gets the right answers, faster than I do  
By: Qov - 9-Oct-2009
Version: 1.3
It's easy to use, easy to see what it did, and the results match exactly those calculated from the CAP GEN table including rounding up to the nearest 100s above the MDA and no rounding at the MDAs.
It would be nice if there were an option for a couple more altitudes, so you don't have to go back and reuse the squares if you have lots of step-down altitudes, e.g. the DME arc to the 13R LOC(BC)/NDB/DME at YXY. Okay maybe it doesn't need THAT many squares, but it is an example of how many one might need.

Has great potential  
By: Jetsetter_ca - 7-Oct-2008
Version: 1.0
The cursor doesn't show in some altitude entry windows. Needs calculations for 25 & 100 mile safe alts as well as the missed approach height. Any chance of Making an app to get schedules from Sabre's Crew Trac?

Dangerous to use in flight due to innacuracies  
By: Pilot747 - 17-Nov-2008
Version: 1.0
I agree with DashDriver's review 100%. The solutions are NOT the same as the Canadian Cap Gen. I have been using this program while flying, and it does not come up with the same corrections as the Cap Gen. For instance, input aerodrome height of 0, temp of -20, and procedure turn of 5000. The correction it calculates is 700ft, but the Cap Gen table shows 710ft! This is dangerous and should not be used in flight until the author has corrected the formula. I look forward to a revision.

Dangerous to use in flight due to innacuracies  
By: Pilot747 - 17-Nov-2008
Version: 1.0
I agree with DashDriver's review 100%. The solutions are NOT the same as the Canadian Cap Gen. I have been using this program while flying, and it does not come up with the same corrections as the Cap Gen. For instance, input aerodrome height of 0, temp of -20, and procedure turn of 5000. The correction it calculates is 700ft, but the Cap Gen table shows 710ft! This is dangerous and should not be used in flight until the author has corrected the formula. I look forward to a revision.

Handy, but needs refinement.  
By: DashDriver - 18-Mar-2009
Version: 1.3
****Update: This app is still inaccurate. For example, when using a temperature of -31, it defaults to the -40 correction. This is safer, but at colder temperatures, -41 defaulted to -50 for example, this can lead to results as much as 120' high at minimums. Although safe, 120' can be the difference between a succesful approach and a missed approach. I'm going to have to change my rating of this app, as it provides little more than ballpark corrections in it's current state. Great idea for my iPhone. However, I tried using it last week in the arctic (where temperatures are well below zero now) and it is inaccurate. The errors are to the high side (meaning safer), however, they are still out by as much as 100' using the CAP Gen to compare results. I'd suggest to the author to review the formulae involved, and to submit an update! I look forward to a more accurate version and am keeping this app on my phone! Cheers!

Handy, but needs refinement.  
By: DashDriver - 18-Mar-2009
Version: 1.3
****Update:This app is still inaccurate. For example, when using a temperature of -31, it defaults to the -40 correction. This is safer, but at colder temperatures, -41 defaulted to -50 for example, this can lead to results as much as 120' high at minimums. Although safe, 120' can be the difference between a succesful approach and a missed approach. I'm going to have to change my rating of this app, as it provides little more than ballpark corrections in it's current state. Great idea for my iPhone. However, I tried using it last week in the arctic (where temperatures are well below zero now) and it is inaccurate. The errors are to the high side (meaning safer), however, they are still out by as much as 100' using the CAP Gen to compare results. I'd suggest to the author to review the formulae involved, and to submit an update! I look forward to a more accurate version and am keeping this app on my phone! Cheers!