Jepp Question

[John Citizen]

For all you Jepp lovers, I am happy to say Jepp's suck.

For example, can anyone tell me where to find the "eye height over the threshold" (MEHT) for each individual approach light (PAPI/T-VASIS) installation.

For example, for YPKG, in BOTH the ERSA and DAPS it species the eye height is 48FT for both Rwy 11 and Rwy 29 AT-VASIS.

I could not find this information anywhere in the Jepps.

I found the correct definitions (TCH / MEHT) on page 120 in the introduction section of the Jepps, but I have not been able to find the MEHT published on any aerodrome chart/approach plate in the Jeppesens.

On page 120 of the Jepps it says MEHT or TCH is shown (when known) when less than 25' for all other systems (other than 3 bar Vasis) including PAPI.

How good is that ? When known ? Couldn't they be bothered to do some research ?

Considering the fact that PAPI/T-VASIS is designed to have a MEHT of about 50', this means it will be rare to ever find it below 25' and so Jeppesen now got a good excuse not to publish this information.

Can anyone maybe help me where to find this information in the Jepps (information which is so readily available in the Airservices documents) ?

Or will I just have to conclude that Jepps are crap ?

And before anyone tells me to look at the TCH published on the Jepps chart, I have done my research and I am more than happy to conclude that THIS IS NOT the eye height over the threshold of the approach lights.

The majority of the time, the TCH is published at 50' on the Jepp chart however if you look in the ERSA/DAPS, you will notice that the MEHT actually varies and is very rarely at the exact figure of 50'.

If you don't believe me, then compare the Jepp and Airservices chart yourselves.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Jepps are good for a common type of chart if you're operating internationally.
However I am used to (and prefer) the local product over Jepps.

[reynoldsno1]

How good is that ? When known ? Couldn't they be bothered to do some research ?
Jeppesen only republish information that is already in the public domain. If it doesn't exist on the original chart, then Jepp will say they don't know - and the information may not be available anyway.

[John Citizen]

I wrote information which is so readily available in the Airservices documents

I also wrote if you look in the ERSA/DAPS, you will notice that the MEHT actually varies and is very rarely at the exact figure of 50'

Reynoldsno1:

This information already is in the public domain for Jeppesen to republish. This information does exist on the original chart and the information is available.

Just take a look at the Airservices documents yourselves.
ERSA (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/aip/ersa/fac.pdf)
DAP's (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/aip2/dap/AeroProcChartsTOC.htm)

Lets take a look at Sydney for example and compare.

In the Jeppesens, no MEHT is published and the TCH is published as :
RWY 07 49'
RWY 25 50'
RWY 16R 52'
RWY 34L 50'
RWY 16L 50'
RWY 34R 50'

In the Airservices DAP charts, if you look at the Sydney Aerodrome Chart page 2 (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/aip2/dap/SSYAD02-099.PDF) or Sydney aerodrome and approach lighting in the ERSA (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/aip/ersa/c1s352.pdf) , you will see the following published MEHT's :

RWY 07 44'
RWY 25 45'
RWY 16R 41'
RWY 34L 41'
RWY 16L 47'
RWY 34R 45'

The published TCH figures in the Jepps agree with those published TCH figures in the Airservices documents, however Jeppesen do not publish any MEHT figures. And as you can see, they are not always the same/equal.

I can only conclude the Jepps do not have all the information that the Airservices documents have !! Yet why do the airlines (so called professionals) love them so much if they do not contain all the information ????

Some people might think what is the big deal anyway ?

At one particular International aerdrome in Australia, the MEHT is 61' for one runway and 39' for the other runway. A difference of 22', however I only found this out through the Airservices documents. I could not find the MEHT anywhere in the Jepps.

Now someone might think what is the big deal again ?

If you use some mathematics (trigonometry) here, a MEHT of 39' will lead you to an aiming point of 226m down the runway, and a MEHT of 61' will lead you to an aiming point 355m down the runway.

A 22' difference in the MEHT will lead you to aim / land/ touchdown 129m further down the runway !!!

Some people might think "big deal" again.

However it is important to note that the touchdown zone is only 300m long (extends only 150m beyond the 300m aiming point) and by aiming 129m further down the runway "might" cause you (it happens a lot) to touchdown beyond your touchdown zone. Now in some airlines (as it says so in our ops manual), this is a MUST for a "go-around" if we don't touchdown in the touchdown zone (even though no one does it) !!

That's what the big deal about it all is !!

A higher MEHT is causing us to land further down the runway and I only found out why after consulting the Airservices documents and comparing the MEHT for different runways.

Before someone tells me if you don't like Jepps, then don't use them, unfortunately Jepps are a company requirement where I work.

[reynoldsno1]

Fair enough - why not ask them then....?

[Back Seat Driver]

More importantly for larger aircraft is the 'Wheel height over the Threshold" This (in an operation I am familiar with), is set at a min. 20 feet. As my eyes are 39 feet above the wheels on crossing the T/H, I need to adjust my vertical displacement on the vasis to allow for the difference ie. 1 light fly down on short final, if the MEHT is less than 59 ft. On smaller aircraft types previously flown, it was not unusual to approach at 1 light fly up(on short final), of course always allowing for specific runway circumstances. I am not aware of any rule that says you must fly the vasis centre bar. Touching down on the right spot is the goal, the vasis is an aid to achieve the goal.

[John Citizen]

Very good answer Back Seat Driver, however you did not really answer my original question.

You said 1 light fly down on short final, if the MEHT is less than 59 ft

Now that sounds great but FIRST where do you find the MEHT published in the Jeppesens anywhere ?

It's a bit difficult to adjust your profile (fly 1 dot high or low) if you do not even know what the MEHT is to start with !

As I said above, I can find the MEHT for each approach light in 2 different Airservices documents (DAPS/ERSA) but nowhere in the Jeppesen documents.

Do you use Jeppesens Back Seat Driver ?

If so, where do you find the MEHT as I could not find it anywhere ?

This was my original question.

[NAMPS]

The answer is found at Jepps ATC AU-320 para 7.1.4.2.

[AerocatS2A]

That doesn't answer his question which was about where to find the MEHT for a specific runway E.g. Sydney 07.

[NAMPS]

I may be incorrect, and I'm sure someone will correct me, but isn't the gradient of T-VASIS the same on all runways and that the angle of incidence is focussed in the middle of the touchdown zone?

If that is the case then the MEHT ought to be within the tolerances stated in Jepps for all runways (ie +/- 15ft). Therefore there is no need for there to be a notation for each specific runway.

My understanding of the TCH is that it represents the height above the threshhold when on the ILS. The TCH will vary according to where the glideslope antenna is placed in relation to the runway.

[John Citizen]

To start with, the MEHT is NOT always within the 15ft tolerance.

Even when it is outside this 15ft tolerance at certain locations, I could not find it specified in the Jeppesens anywhere.

Take a look at Darwin RWY 29 (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/aip/ersa/c1d124.pdf). The MEHT is 76ft !

However I could not find this information in the Jepp documents. I had to consult the Airservices ERSA (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/aip/ersa/fac.pdf) or DAP's (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/aip/dap/AeroProcChartsTOC.htm)

If Airservices can publish this information in 2 different places, then why can't Jeppesen ? That's why I say the Airservices DAPs are better then Jeppesens.

Or maybe Jeppesens do publish this information somewhere but I can not find it.
:confused:

The MEHT will vary (just like the TCH varies with the ILS) depending on where the approach lights are placed in relation to the runway.

Take a careful look next time you are flying, as the approach lights are not always positoned/focused in the exact middle of the touchdown zone.

Take a look at some of the examples I mentioned above regarding MEHT and "aiming point" (where the lights are positioned on the runway).

A +/- 15ft MEHT tolerance will mean a difference of +/- 88m in the
position of the lights (aim point) !

Considering the touchdown zone is 300m long, this tolerance could place the lights anywhere within 59% of the length of the zone, and not exactly in the middle.

With the lights at Darwin with a MEHT of 76ft, the aim point is at 440m ! This is almost at the very end of the touchdown zone (97% of the way towards the end), which is nowhere near the middle.

So I am sorry to say that the lights are NOT always focussed in the middle of the touchdown zone.

However without any published MEHT information in the Jeppesens, how is a pilot supposed to know this until you actually land somewhere and notice the lights are maybe a little bit out to what you expected (ie. MEHT of 49ft as specified in the Jepps ATC AU-320).

If you consult the Airservices documents, you can work this out rather quickly without having to land there first.

[NAMPS]

Interesting point you raise John Citizen, I will pay attention to the location of the T-VASIS next time!

I guess that it has never made too much of a difference for me as the biggest thing I've ever flown is a Metro/King Air, there is no way I was in danger of ever encountering an over run area, even if I was a bit high and fast over the threshhold.

[DirectAnywhere]

I've always found it on the back of the airport chart ie. page 10-9a which contains runway length and the like. If not there, no idea....

[Bill Smith]

This may help explain why variances aren't shown on every Jepp chart.

MEHT or TCH is shown in the Jepp's ( If known ) when it is less than 60' for the upwind bar of a (3 bar) vasis or, less than 25' for all other systems including PAPI


Ref JEPP's Introduction 120

[John Citizen]

I already mentioned this in my first post.

I have already said this :Considering the fact that PAPI/T-VASIS is designed to have a MEHT of about 50', this means it will be rare to ever find it below 25' and so Jeppesen now got a good excuse not to publish this information.

I also said I can only conclude the Jepps do not have all the information (ie MEHT) that the Airservices documents have !! Yet why do the airlines (so called professionals) love them so much if they do not contain all the information ????

[Bill Smith]

Whoops !!

Read the post I guess :uhoh:

[ITCZ]

For all you Jepp lovers, I am happy to say Jepp's suck.


Good for you.

Shame you ruined an opportunity to present an interesting discussion topic in a 'professional' bulletin board by acting like a mindless member of a cheersquad.

Jepp v ASA
Boeing v Airbus
Jet v Prop
Turbine v Piston
Female v Male pilots
Ford v Holden
Australian v Imported

Or...

"This company is rubbish. In Ansett/at Singapore/in Jets/in the Navy/in the States we used to fly it [fill in the blanks]"

Same thing.

Big deal.

Are we interested to hear about differences?

Yes. All good stuff for the professional toolbox between the ears.

Listen to someone who says "Mine is the only way. Yours is crap."?

No.

Have only shown yourself to be incapable of dealing with relativities.

Keep your petty hates and prejudices to yourself. Try to remember this is a forum for professionals. A true pro doesn't jump on bandwagons and bag the crap out of any other method. A true pro assesses what is being asked of him in company docs and procedures, and measures it against personal knowledge and standards. Then if there is no great disconnect between what is being asked and what the professional knows about his/her subject, the professional goes and does the job the way he or she is asked to do it.

Declaring yourself to be incapable of or uncomfortable in working with certain kinds of equipment/documents/pilots just shows that you are limited, not the equipment/docs/other pilots.

[John Citizen]

You say Good for you

Thanks.

I thought it would be a good topic/question/valid opinion to post and so I did.

I admit maybe I was being a bit prejudice, but this is only because other Jepp lovers have been so prejudice Airservices documents in the past/towards me.

Many years ago (1996) my flying instructor who loved Jepps so much told me how the DAPS were CRAP and he just loved the Jepps so much. He said the Jepps must be good/better because airline pilots use them. Is that a valid reason ?

He also came up with a few other reasons why the Jepps are so much better, such as the texture of the paper and other reasons which I thought were not valid.

It is the content of the document and not who uses them that should be considered in determining their quality.

I would love to see this instructor now and ask him if he can find the MEHT on the Jepps chart anywhere ? He would probably still tell me DAPs are crap.

Maybe my prejudice is aimed towards this instructor and not towards other pilots, and so I apologise.

Though I have seen this topic of "Jepps vs Daps" debated many time on pprune and so I thought I would have my "valid" say. I have backed up my opinion with proof (important operational information), and not other reasons, such as quality of paper etc.

I work in a multi crew environment myself and I well aware of the need to be accomodating to others, and I believe I am.

Its is these other pilots who have been so unaccomodating towards me in the past.

So this post was aimed towards them in a way, I hope they read it.

If only I could find them now and discuss it face to face.

[AerocatS2A]

John Citizen,

Way to let some kind of past disagreements possibly ruin a good thread.

Personally I prefer the Jepps. Reasons;

1. I find the ammendments easier to deal with (I have run both concurrently and had to give up on the ASA version because I couldn't easily tell if my docs were current or not).

2. The entire AIP is contained within two folders.

3. I happen to be at a stage in my career where the MEHT is irrelevant so I hadn't noticed that they were not available.

I am quite comfortable with the fact that you prefer the DAPS etc and will not waste my time or yours discussing why one is better than the other. If you prefer the DAPS that is fine by me.

I am interested to know the answer to your question and am hoping that one will be forthcoming in this thread.

However, statements like "Jepps are crap" just get some people's hackles up and threaten to overide what could be a constructive thread.

ITCZ,

Come on, it's not hard to pick out the meat from this OP, it takes two to tango etc, if you were to clinically answer the guy's question then the whole Jepp vs ASA thing need not be an issue.

Two questions (from someone who likes Jepps);

1. Is the MEHT figure operationally useful?

2. If so, why do the Jepps not have it (or do they - where?)?

[DirectAnywhere]

So are they on page 10-9a like I said or are they not?

I havent got a full set anymore. I know they're there for SYD, MEL, BNE etc. what about everywhere else?

Put me out of my misery someone please!!!

[reynoldsno1]

Seems like there is a whole bunch of whinging about Jepp's perceived lack of quality, and much asking of questions from people who can't answer - why not ask the source of the vexation - JEPPESEN themselves.
I have always found them very approachable

[Bill Smith]

DA

Could you be specific as to where on 10-9a MEHT is notated?

On all runway approaches in the Jepps the TCH is notated wouldn't you just add your cockpit height to that to get MEHT?

Does MEHT only apply to visual slope indicators?

[John Citizen]

Aerocat S2A

You say 1. I find the ammendments easier to deal with .

Well I find it a pain in the ass (other pilots have also said this) doing Jepp amendments every 2 weeks compared to DAP amendments only a few times/year.

DAP amendments are usually received well in advance of their effective date. This was if you haven't received them approaching this next effective date ( I kept track of when the next amendment was due in a normal diary), you can still chase them up and receive them in advance time so as to keep them up do date/amended at the effective date.

I have already missed several Jepp amendments and by the time they send you out a replacement copy from America, the effective date has already passed.

You also say I couldn't easily tell if my docs were current or not

I can't work out why you couldn't work this out as I work it out very easy.

At the front of the DAPs it says "effective date" and it also says when the next amendment is due (mark this in your diary or on a calendar somewhere). It is then very easy to work it all out.

Just like the Jepps, the DAP amendments are all numbered in chronological order, which makes it easy again when doing amendments.

You also say The entire AIP is contained within two folders

Yes, it all is within 2 folders but very difficult to use/amend as the folders are maybe too small for all the pages to fit. I had to purchase a 3rd Jepp folder at a cost of $70.

Another reason

I just found another reason why I believe DAPs are better then Jepps.

With every DAP amendment you get a checklist of all the pages/contents. This way you can check that you got every page and that it is current.

Jepps only send this checklist once a year (Annual Content Checklist). That is once every 26 amendments compared to once every amendment with DAPs.

I believe I got a few pages missing/out of order with my Jepps now but I have to wait unitl Jeppesen send me this "Annual Content Checklist".

This means it you could be almost 12 months until you realise you got some pages missing/out of date with your Jepps.

Direct Anywhere

The MEHT is not published on page 10-9a. I just had a look.

I already said I couldn't find the MEHT published anywhere, which
included page 10-9a and any other page.

You say : know they're there for SYD, MEL, BNE etc. what about everywhere else?

But I am sorry to say that it is not there, even for SYD, MEL, BNE etc.

All that is published on page 10-9a is the VASIS/PAPI slope but not MEHT.

[A Comfy Chair]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but reading the Sydney chart 10-9A, take rwy 16R for example, reading across the line, it says that the MEHT is 39' :confused:

With regards to preference between Jepps and say, the DAPS, I suppose it depends on what you are used to. Whilst the DAPS have a common format for all approaches in Australia, if you were to fly overseas, the same format is not available, and its necessary to read an unfamiliar chart. Jeppesen have the advantage of providing the same form of chart for approaches all around the world.

When I flew using only DAPs, I had no problem reading them. Now I've flown using the Jepps, I'm used to them. Ask me which one I'd prefer to fly off, I'd say the Jeppesen, perhaps only for the fact that its what I'm used to. I like the MUCH more prominent missed approach on the Jepp plate, and the holding diagrams. Really, each to his own.

[John Citizen]

Comfy chair

I must be blind, help me please. I have studied Sydney chart 10-9A (27 AUG 04, Eff 2 Sep) and I can not find the MEHT published anywhere. :confused:

Reading across the line for Rwy16R all I get is :

HIRL CL HIALS TDZ T-VASI (angle 3.0) 12,720' 11,788' 07/25 3875' 148'

Am I looking in the right area ?
:confused:

I just compared the missed approach and holding diagrams on both Jepps and DAPs and I don't see much difference there.

From memory, I don't believe Jepps even published holding diagrams a few years ago (whilst DAPs did !) and Jepp pilots had to calculate the sector entry using a variety of techniques such as your thumb etc.

The only point I agree with you/others is using the same chart format/familiarity anywhere in the world.

More reasons

I just found a few more areas where Jepps are inferior to DAPs :

1- Ever since I subscribed to DAPs, I no longer receive "AIP Supplements and AIC's"

What do I do now ? I got a valid reason not to read them ? What if I didn't have access to the internet ?

2 - The NOTAMS I read before flight make reference to Airservices documents and support Airservices documents but there is no reference/support to Jepps.

Just read this topic (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142627) that was on pprune not too long ago.

Anyone using DAPs would never have this problem !

[Bill Smith]

To solve this can someone scan 10-9A paste it here and highlight the MEHT becaused I'm buggered if I can see it !!

[NAMPS]

Seems to me like horses for courses.

For me, like A Comfy Chair says, I prefer the layout of Jepps plates. They are easy to read in low light situations. I recall doing a sim ride using DAPs and I was all at sea. I also like the fact that you don't have to carry a library as the AIP and ERSA are contained in 2 volumes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking DAPs, using Jepps is my preference because it has all the info I need in a layout that I'm used to.

[Bevan666]

Jepps only send this checklist once a year (Annual Content Checklist). That is once every 26 amendments compared to once every amendment with DAPs.

If you log into Jeppesens Website (http://www.jeppesen.com/) you can get the current charts in your subscribed distribution(s) and do a check whenever you wish. If you find any missing, contact jeppesen and they will send you replacement charts free of charge.

Bevan..

[DirectAnywhere]

I've just realised it could be because my employer uses tailored charts.

My SYD 10-9a chart has slope and MEHT for all T-VASI installations at SYD - I've just looked at it but I can't post it here. I know this is of no help to anyone but me but it could explain the difference.

[OzExpat]

Yes, I was just getting ready to jump in here and ask DA if he's using tailored charts. That makes a huge difference to this whole situation. Many major airlines, including the FWR, pay big bucks for having the Jepp charts tailored to their needs.

[John Citizen]

Ozexpat

You say :Many major airlines, including the FWR, pay big bucks for having the Jepp charts tailored to their needs.

Does this mean everyday pilots/subscribers don't ?

Why should someone pay extra to have the MEHT published on a chart if Airservices publishes this information at no extra cost, and is available to the normal everyday subscriber ?

Why can't Jepps match the same level of information provided by DAPs ?

Bevan666

Thanks for the info, I will have a look.

[Tinstaafl]

I vastly prefer the flip-over/top ring binding format of DAPs. I loathe the ring binder used in Jepps (and Aerad). Their system seems to be based around the idea that you should go through & remove the desired pages before use & then re-insert them afterwards. Stuff that for a joke.

DAPs & the USA's FAA equivalent use a flip over style that I find preferable.

[grrowler]

"Eaztside iz de best!"
"Weztside izz de best!"
Dude, you sound like Mr Jepp did something nasty to you as a child!

Ok, I'm not saying that Jepp shouldn't publish the info if it is available and operationally important, and I don't operate aircraft where it is a big deal, so can someone please explain; say the MEHT was 76' or whatever it is in DN, how does this change your approach? Fly a dot "fly up" :ooh: I can see the problem if the MEHT is low, which is when Jepps do publish it.

I prefer Jepps for 2 main reasons, the chart layout is a lot clearer to me, and the info does actually fit into 2 folders. Using that argument against Jepps is a tad hypocrytical, as I'm sure anyone who has tried to fit their Daps into 2 folders, and then had to lug around the 4 folders in their flight bag, would agree. You obviously prefer AsA pubs, for your own reasons.

So an interesting point you make JC, but lets stick to the facts.

[Bill Smith]

From what I undestand Airservices will change a chart if requested by an operator.

e.g Say No Scare Airlines comes along and says we want to reduce the minima at Canberra to 2100'. Our loads allow us to meet a 4.6% gradient on the missed approach. NoAirservices says yes for a fee we will change that.
Bad Luck for all the other operator that don't meet that gradient. Just adjust your DA height so you do.

Please feel free to disagree :D

[OzExpat]

I don't work for Jepps JC, so you'd have to direct that question to them. I can tell you, however, that chart tailoring has been going on since at least 1986 to my knowledge. Maybe even longer.

Chart tailoring can be as simple as reducing the number of categories in the minima box and may include a slightly higher minima if the particular company requests it. If other information is specifically required by an airline, that will also be included on their tailored charts.

If you don't like this system, don't get angry with me, as your post smiley seems to suggest, do it with Jepps. I'm sure that they'll care more than I do.

[John Citizen]

grrowler

Read the whole topic again carefully and do some research as I have already stated several facts here already.

Facts

1 - Jeppesen do not publish the MEHT the way Airservices does (forget about tailored charts)

2- Jepp subscribers DO NOT receive "AIP Supplements and AIC's"

3 - Jepp subscribers DO NOT receive the latest chart NOTAM service everytime they fly and receive their preflight briefing/NOTAMS - daily (Airservices) NOTAMS ( the ones you obtain when you submit your plan and get a preflight briefing through NAIPs/AVFAX or whatever other way) support the DAPs but not the Jepps

4 - With every DAP amendment you get a checklist of all the pages/contents. This way you can check that you got every page and that it is current. Jepps only send this checklist once a year (Annual Content Checklist). That is once every 26 amendments compared to once every amendment with DAPs.

Lets forget about the internet. What if you are out bush and got no access to the internet ? You submit your plan and get NOTAMS from AVFAX.

5 - Jepps do not fit "comfortably/easily" in 2 folders. I (and many other pilots I know) have had to purchase extra folders to accomodate all the pages. To be more specific, the Jepps "Terminal Section" does not fit comfortably/easily in one folder.

If you do not believe me, then put all the terminal pages in a 2" Jepp folder and then try and remove maybe the first few or last few pages !!

Grrowler, I have stated at least 5 facts in all my posts up to now. I now challenge you to proove me wrong please ( if you can. ) Please explain how these FACTS are NOT facts but they are only interesting points/opinions as you say they are.

Now I have to repeat myself again.

You say :

say the MEHT was 76' or whatever it is in DN, how does this change your approach ? Fly a dot "fly up" .

Look at your Darwin Jepp chart again. The MEHT is not published for Darwin. So how can you adjust your approach (like you say you can and fly a dot "fly up") if the MEHT IS NOT published ?

Ozexpat

Sorry, the smiley is not aimed at you. It is aimed at Jeppesen because according to your comment, everyday pilots don't pay enough to receive the full information (ie MEHT). According to your comment, you got to pay extra (like the airlines do) in order to receive MEHT information.

For everyone else

I am stating some FACTS which others might be intersted in. I am stating these FACTS so others can make whatever opinion they want knowing these facts. From these post, it is obvious some pilots were not even aware of some of the facts I have mentioned here.

[AerocatS2A]

Geez, settle down. Like I said before I'm not going to get into a discussion about why one is better than the other. I prefer Jepps for the reasons stated (perhaps I didn't give the ASA docs much of a chance, it really doesn't matter). I fully accept that you prefer the DAPS.

It would seem that the answer to your question is that Jepp does not have the MEHT on their charts. It would also seem that no one who uses them have noticed or care. I am guessing that those who don't need it have never noticed it's missing (e.g. me), and that those who do need it are probably working for RPT companies that have tailored charts.

Tailored charts is not supposed to be about paying extra money to get extra information, it's supposed to be paying extra money to get information tailored to your organisation. E.g. having higher minimums on the approaches or prehaps company specific information, whatever.

If you have a problem with the Jepps, then don't use them, no one is forcing you to.

If you have a problem with people saying that Jepps are better,then you seem to be talking to the wrong audience, there doesn't seem to be any rabid Jepp lovers here.

BTW, I get all AICs and AIP supps from the internet.

I prefer doing lots of small ammendments rather than a couple of big ones.

I like the way the ammendment master sheet is portrayed on the Jepps.

I have had the Jepps for longer therefore am used to them.

I have never had a problem with NOTAMs not being tailored for the Jepps. I'm not saying that they ARE tailored for the jepps, only that I have not had a problem with them NOT being tailored for the Jepps.

I only fly to a small number of airfields and so have a small folder (just an A5 binder) with the relevent charts plus my Jepp folder 1 with the Air Traffic Control and other sections in it. My terminal folder stays home.

To top it off, when I got my ASA docs there were AICs and SUPPS missing and one of the folders was broken. Also I had to do a heap of ammendments to bring it up to date as soon as I got it (the ammendments came with the docs).

The above point gave me the impression that the ASA version was less professional and it put me off (rightly or wrongly).

All of the other points are just about what is right for me, not about which is better.

To sum up. I accept all your facts and yet, for my own reasons, I still prefer the Jepps.

[Transition Layer]

John Citizen,

2 - The NOTAMS I read before flight make reference to Airservices documents and support Airservices documents but there is no reference/support to Jepps.

AND

3 - Jepp subscribers DO NOT receive the latest chart NOTAM service everytime they fly and receive their preflight briefing/NOTAMS - daily (Airservices) NOTAMS ( the ones you obtain when you submit your plan and get a preflight briefing through NAIPs/AVFAX or whatever other way) support the DAPs but not the Jepps

I thought you were correct, until I saw this on NAIPS today!


PORT MACQUARIE (YPMQ)
C91/04
AMD JEPPESEN GPS ARRIVAL SECTOR B DATED 11 APR 03
EFFECTIVE 17 APR 03
STEP DOWN FM 3400FT TO 3000FT IS AT 10NM
FROM 09 060628 TO PERM

Very interesting!!! First time i've seen that and I am a Jepps user.

Cheers,
TL

[grrowler]

JC, take it easy pal!

You prove my point, yes you have stated some facts, but how emotive are you getting!? I agree with the facts, I never said I didn't, however I prefer Jepps. Facts 1 through 4 don't really bother me, as I'm quite comfortable that I have all the information I need when I go flying.

Fact 5: I managed to fit my Jepps into 2 folders by splitting the content down the middle (after CD in the charts). I agree there could be more space, but the point I was making was, and I guess I'll need to repeat myself also, the DAPs do not fit in the folders supplied by ASA either. Plus you need to carry the 2 AIP folders and an ERSA (I guess that's a "fact"). I don't like that.

While we're on the subject of repeating ourselves, you obviously misread my question, so I'll ask you this again; If you were flying to DN, and you were "lucky" enough to have ASA charts, and you therefore knew
the MEHT was 76' or whatever it is in DN, how does this change your approach?
What I'm suggesting is that Jepps will publish an MEHT if it is operationally important information.

[John Citizen]

Thanks TL

I withdraw Fact #3, because I admit I was wrong here, and did not get my facts right.

Thanks.

grrowler

Your question :

so I\'ll ask you this again; If you were flying to DN, and you were "lucky" enough to have ASA charts, and you therefore knew the MEHT was 76\' or whatever it is in DN, how does this change your approach?

My answer :

I would maybe fly 1 or 2 dots low.

I remember once when I was in a jumpseat of a Bae146 landing in DN at night. One pilot briefed the other pilot that he will deliberately fly 1 dot low because of the MEHT.

1 dot low would place me at about 51\' to 67\'
2 dots low would place me at about 33\' to 51\'

This way I would cross the threshold at the normal (at about) 50\' and my aimpoint would be in the middle of the touchdown zone.

This now means I should now be able to land within the touchdown zone instead of well beyond it (which might necessitate a go-around for landing too far down the runway).

Take a look back what I said on page 1.

With the lights at Darwin with a MEHT of 76ft, the aim point is at 440m ! This is almost at the very end of the touchdown zone (97% of the way towards the end), which is nowhere near the middle.

[Transition Layer]

No worries JC, I'm sure you were surprised as I was to see a NOTAM specifically referring to Jepp documents. Jepps are still better though!!! :p

G'day grrowler, hope all is well. Must be time for beers soon.

Cheers,
TL

[Capt Claret]

JC

2- Jepp subscribers DO NOT receive "AIP Supplements and AIC's"

Yes they do, if they subscribe to them. If one does not subscribe to the AIP which comes bundled with AIP SUP/AIC then one doesn't receive them either.

4 - With every DAP amendment you get a checklist of all the pages/contents. This way you can check that you got every page and that it is current. Jepps only send this checklist once a year (Annual Content Checklist). That is once every 26 amendments compared to once every amendment with DAPs.

With every Jeppesen amendment one receives a checklist showing which page to add/remove/replace. This way one can check that they received every page. If one want's to check the whole manual each fortnight, then they can use the annual checklist in conjunction with the fortnightly checklists. BTW, jeppesen also replace up to 40 sheets annually without charge, back when I suubscribed to AIP, nothing was for nothing.

5 - Jepps do not fit "comfortably/easily" in 2 folders. I (and many other pilots I know) have had to purchase extra folders to accomodate all the pages. To be more specific, the Jepps "Terminal Section" does not fit comfortably/easily in one folder.

I considered the purchase of a 3" jeppesen binder, tried it and found that the whole of the Terminal section fit quite well. For other reasons I purchased a 1" binder.

[QSK?]

I like Jepps because the planview and profile diagrams are a bigger size and the numbers are clearer to see under reduced lighting conditions. Whereas the DAP diagrams and numbers are really small in comparison and very hard to see with that 10nm circle and (sometimes) shading around them.

However, I really prefer the DAP's method of presenting the various MDAs, whereas determining MDAs from the Jepps can be a real trial when you are under pressure.

[grrowler]

JC,

thanks for the answer, I hadn't heard of someone flying deliberately 2 dots low, guess its never been an issue in the little ones. Do you (or anyone else) know why the MEHT varies so much?

Conducting a go-around after realising you've landed too far down the runway sounds interesting....

[OzExpat]

Yes, grrowler, I can think of two general reasons for variation of MEHT from standard :-

1. Less than optimum siting of the VASIS or PAPI. This can happen if the ground in the optimum area is soft or subject to subsidence, etc.

2. A close-in obstacle. An example of this might be a road running close to the airport boundary. In such a case, an allowance has to be made for a large (ie tall) vehicle that might be travelling along the relevant section of the road.

Examples of both these problems (and a few others :uhoh: ) can be readily found here in PNG.

[grrowler]

That makes sense, but does that mean you intentionally fly below the guidance lights? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of the allowance for obstacles? swh? ;)