Unreliable, slow and ineffective
My work decided to get Baldwin for our FRATs and it has been a downgrade in every way from our previous software. Poor layout, poorly coded search/text input functions, frequent loading failure loops, no API integration with assigned trips, unclear organization within the FRAT itself and lacking metrics.
Poor layout and search: text boxes and search results jump around when the keyboard loads, leading to misclicks. The cursor should automatically go to the search bar when I open the airport search function. Once I select an airport, it shoves the next input box down 2-4” depending on WX and NOTAM length. I’m not here for WX and NOTAM research, I’m here for a FRAT score.
Failure loops: on various installs on various devices, the Baldwin app and FRAT page both get into failure loops when attempting to load. The app/form should be fully local and not require any sort of loading. Many airplanes do not have internet.
No API: this may be my company’s fault but none of my assigned trips integrate with Baldwin so I’m going to our crew app to look up trip numbers, assigned tail, destinations. Baldwin deletes all progress when I leave the app to get this information and I have to start again, if it will load. If APIs are possible, any half decent software salesman would have ensured they were implemented, which Baldwin obviously did not.
Unclear organization: inside the FRAT submission (which has an unrelated title and is piled in with a dozen other unused forms), after scrolling past lines of unnecessary WX & NOTAM information, headers are placed BELOW the relevant inputs. It asks if the runway is grooved (wet) or if it is ungrooved. You have to parse the options to realize that (wet) is a header and is meant to be above the options for runway surface.
Same goes for many other headers which are inside sub-options; they were coded by someone who has never seen an organized list before. Moreover who cares if the runway is grooved (wet) or ungrooved (wet) if I already have to calculate my landing distance for the other question regarding my landing distance??
The last issue is that there is no metric for some inputs. Security risk is low medium or high with a value assigned to each. What is that related to? Who’s to say what is high or low Security Risk on a charter flight? Even if I do get a high total score when I finish, I can always just input any negative number on the ‘free response’ section and make the safety score of the flight “look good”.
Writing this made me feel the same way I feel while using this app: upset and frustrated with the amount of time I have wasted on behalf of Baldwin.
Poor layout and search: text boxes and search results jump around when the keyboard loads, leading to misclicks. The cursor should automatically go to the search bar when I open the airport search function. Once I select an airport, it shoves the next input box down 2-4” depending on WX and NOTAM length. I’m not here for WX and NOTAM research, I’m here for a FRAT score.
Failure loops: on various installs on various devices, the Baldwin app and FRAT page both get into failure loops when attempting to load. The app/form should be fully local and not require any sort of loading. Many airplanes do not have internet.
No API: this may be my company’s fault but none of my assigned trips integrate with Baldwin so I’m going to our crew app to look up trip numbers, assigned tail, destinations. Baldwin deletes all progress when I leave the app to get this information and I have to start again, if it will load. If APIs are possible, any half decent software salesman would have ensured they were implemented, which Baldwin obviously did not.
Unclear organization: inside the FRAT submission (which has an unrelated title and is piled in with a dozen other unused forms), after scrolling past lines of unnecessary WX & NOTAM information, headers are placed BELOW the relevant inputs. It asks if the runway is grooved (wet) or if it is ungrooved. You have to parse the options to realize that (wet) is a header and is meant to be above the options for runway surface.
Same goes for many other headers which are inside sub-options; they were coded by someone who has never seen an organized list before. Moreover who cares if the runway is grooved (wet) or ungrooved (wet) if I already have to calculate my landing distance for the other question regarding my landing distance??
The last issue is that there is no metric for some inputs. Security risk is low medium or high with a value assigned to each. What is that related to? Who’s to say what is high or low Security Risk on a charter flight? Even if I do get a high total score when I finish, I can always just input any negative number on the ‘free response’ section and make the safety score of the flight “look good”.
Writing this made me feel the same way I feel while using this app: upset and frustrated with the amount of time I have wasted on behalf of Baldwin.
Show more
Ehh
Does the job in a pinch. Not a very streamlined app. Shows the "airports syncing" messages constantly, doesn't save the dark mode selection, keyboard gets stuck open and you have to trick the app into closing it by finding the right text box to select.
App crashes and constantly updating
App crashes frequently while using it. The app is also constantly updating and causes a laggy user experience. Please correct app because it makes me not want to use for our work.
Laggy software with slow response
App is very laggy and the buttons are very slow to respond. Buttons often take up one second to respond to the point where you think the button press wasn’t registered. This occurs even on a high speed internet connection and seems to continuously be syncing data which seems to slow the function of the app. Overall the website is much easier and faster to use for pilot functions. Please update software to not continuously sync data and the buttons need to respond immediately. Feels very clunky in this version.
Show more
