Originally Posted by DLDude

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

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

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

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 Gspeed

Logging you out during descent below FL180 into a major hub, or any airport for that matter, doesn’t qualify as unsafe?

Originally Posted by Trip7

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