Software replacement for VFR flight charts, planning etc

[Odai]

Hello,

With the new southern CAA VFR charts being released recently, I began thinking about the possibility of using an electronic equivalent instead of paper charts.

I came across Sky Demon (have occassionally used the web browser based 'light' version), and downloaded the software with a free trial account.

The software offers a lot of advantages, and can potentially make my flying easier and safer. In addition to the charts, you have available certain bits of relevant flight planning information such as NOTAMs, airfield plates etc.

It seems like an ideal candidate to do away completely with paper and having to go through the AIS website for NOTAMS. For in-flight purposes, I could use a tablet with paper print outs as backups. Or just use paper in flight. Either way, it would make things a lot easier.

However, I have two concerns. Firstly, is the extent of the information available. For example, do the charts in the program show all the details available on the CAA charts? Secondly, is the accuracy of what is presented. Is it guaranteed the information is reliable? I guess this depends on both the source of the information and how regularly it is updated.

The software has a popup on startup that prompts you to accept a notice stating that the accuracy of some of the information is not guaranteed, and that the software is not a replacement for official tools. However, it is not clear on what is and what isn't reliable in that sense.

If Sky Demon isn't suitable for what I'm after, is there any other software out there that is? For example, do the CAA or NATS offer their own 'official' software I could use instead?

I guess these are the same reasons I never got into using VFR guides like a lot of other people, I have only ever referred to the AIP for any information in addition to the typical NOTAM, METAR etc routine.

Would appreciate any input on this!

Thanks

Odai.

[Whopity]

For example, do the CAA or NATS offer their own 'official' software I could use instead? No but you can get CAA Charts that run in Memory Map (http://shop.memory-map.co.uk/acatalog/maps-aviation.html) software.

Whilst I use both Skydeamon lite and MM, I still carry a paper chart which works without batteries and can be dropped without fear of damage.

[wb9999]

Odai, in some respects SkyDemon is more accurate than the CAA maps. The latest Southern England chart still shows Filton and it's ATZ, even though it is officially closed and the ATZ is no more. The CAA charts become outdated very quickly - in effect, they are only accurate on the day they are printed.

SkyDemon, and others with vector maps such as RunwayHD, get their information from official sources, and so the data for the UK should be reliable. They are updated monthly, so are always up-to-date.

I use SkyDemon for flight planning - weather, notams, PLOG and navigation. I always have a paper CAA chart with the route marked on (printed from Memory Map, so no worries with folding the map in-flight) and a printed PLOG, in case of technical failure with the iPad, software or GPS (very rare, but I always expect it will happen at an inconvenient time). I also have Air Navigation Pro as a CAA moving map backup on an Android phone.

I've tried all of the products, and SkyDemon is by far the easiest to use, the most complete and has the simplest maps in-flight.

[S-Works]

I am with Whoppity, I use Skydemon for pretty much everything and then keep a current CAA chart as a backup. Belt and braces...

[chrisN]

Another thing: posted on gliderpilot.net by a colleague of mine:

----------------
NATS has published the following amendment:
E12752 18/02/2013 ATS ROUTE L10
Add L10 5500+ as a small triangular area of airspace, starting
clockwise:
520634.75N 0004227.40W
520421.00N 0003712.15W
520228.25N 0004702.50W.

------------

I understand that it is near Cranfield and Milton Keynes.

Chris N

[piperarcher]

he latest Southern England chart still shows Filton and it's ATZ, even though it is officially closed and the ATZ is no more.

It now has a H in the middle because although closed to all fixed wing traffic, and other rotary visitors, the local Heli-Med or similar kind of operation are still using the ATZ.

Besides that, I'd concur with eveything else WB9999 said, particuarly keeping paper backups of charts of PLOG's. I did the most stupid thing a few weeks ago in my cockpit, and that was to accidentally delete SkyDemon from my iPad. What I meant to do was forcibly kill the applicaton and restart it. I downloaded it again on a poor 3G connection, and realised it retains none of your settings nor the maps, or anything in cache, so I just stuck with my paper plans - and my GNS430 :-).

[wb9999]

It now has a H in the middle because although closed to all fixed wing traffic, and other rotary visitors, the local Heli-Med or similar kind of operation are still using the ATZ.

The ATZ is definitely not active. It was notamed as indefinitely suspended on January 1st.

[dublinpilot]

It seems like an ideal candidate to do away completely with paper and having to go through the AIS website for NOTAMS. For in-flight purposes, I could use a tablet with paper print outs as backups. Or just use paper in flight. Either way, it would make things a lot easier.

As others have said there is no legal requirement to carry paper charts (at least not in any country that I’m familiar with).

There are however some practical issues that need to be considered.

Ramp inspections are rare, but they do occasionally happen. If you were unlucky enough to have one you might find an inspector who assumed that the requirement was for a paper chart. In the end nothing would come of it, because the inspector would be set straight by ‘higher ups’ but you might have an awkward delay and nervous time while it all got sorted.

Things would be much more difficult if by the time you had your ramp inspection your battery in your device had died and you’ve no way of showing that you had access to the electronic chart in flight.

If you were unfortunate enough to bust an airspace and the airspace was not in the database of your chosen device, or the layout of the device made it difficult to interpret, then things would again be uncomfortable. I could imagine that a lot of questions would be asked about your choice of electronic chart. However if you busted an airspace because of an error on the national VFR chart then I imagine that they would try to brush it under the carpet. If you use a proven system with a reliable database then this shouldn’t be much of a worry.

You have to consider how you’d be if the system died on you for some reason. That could be because of an irrecoverable system crash, because the screen died, the battery gave up, you dropped it by accident and smashed the screen....whatever. If this left you in a situation that you couldn’t navigate then questions would be asked.

Having said all that, I have on a number of occasions flown with electronic maps only. For example last year I went to Scotland without a current paper chart, relying on (EasyVFR) PocketFMS charts (which I know are extremely reliable and easy to interpret even when flying at higher levels as I like to).

I also went to France last year with EasyVFR by PocketFMS (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.pocketfms.pocketfms&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEsImNvbS5wb2NrZXRmbXM ucG9ja2V0Zm1zIl0) (then called the PocketFMS app) again without a paper chart. I am happy to rely on PocketFMS’s database. However in this case I had an official French 500K chart in a second window that I could make reference to if I wished. (EasyVFR allows you to split your screen into different views. So can run an ICAO chart beside the PocketFMS chart, or indeed a 3D synthetic vision type view if you wish.)
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/964/img0095r.png

However I would never fly without a paper chart unless I had at least one backup. That could be a phone, a car sat nav or another tablet, running a proper aviation chart (vector chart or digital version of paper map). Electronics fail for all sorts of reasons. You must have a backup. If you choose not to have paper as a backup, then you need an electronic backup.

Both your main system and your backup must be up to date if you are to rely on it. Both should be running from the moment you start up. GPSs that are turned on in flight can have difficulty getting a fix, and in any case you don’t know your backup will work until you try it ;) Turn both on and leave them on for the duration of the flight.

The other thing you should think about if you are going to use it for your NOTAM brief, is can you print a copy of that briefing, or at least make an electronic copy of the briefing. There is at least one popular poster here who has publically said that they busted a prohibited area that wasn’t shown on the official paper charts and didn’t appear in his NOTAM briefing. I understand that the fact that it didn’t appear in the NOTAM briefing was a significant factor in ensuring that the matter was dropped. If you’ve no way of proving what appeared in your NOTAM briefing then you deny yourself this defence.

I don’t know how other systems handle this, but EasyVFR makes it easy to print this, even from a tablet/phone. You can also easily store an electronic copy for later reference, if you don’t want to print it.

So in summary it’s ok to use electronic charts. I think it’s really about taking sensible precautions, and making sure that you’ve a backup if your primary system fails, and a way of proving your flight planning work (eg NOTAM briefing).

Take these precautions, and then I think you are ok to use electronic only. Don’t and you run a serious risk.

Personally I’m happy to rely on EasyVFR by PocketFMS. I should point out for the sake of clarity that I’m a beta tester for PocketFMS, but I don’t have any financial involvement with PocketFMS. I’m just a happy user who was invited to be part of the beta testing group.

[Odai]

Many thanks everyone for your responses, dublinpilot especially - that was very informative!

I think that all confirms what I was concerned about then.

I've been having a bit of more a mess around with the software since my last post and I've found a few more features what would be extremely useful with flight planning. It really would make things more efficient and quicker - especially for when I can finally start my hour building after receiving my license, considering I'd be planning many flights in a short span of time.

However, for the reasons mentioned above, when using Sky Demon I'd still basically have to do everything I do now without the software to check the planning. Although SD offers METARs, TAFs, NOTAMs, airfield plates etc all with easy access from the software, I would still need to go to the official source (Met Office, AIP etc) to double check the accuracy of the information. They don't seem to provide any guarantee that the information is reliable, and they are not licensed by the CAA or any official body.

I realise that most of it will actually be accurate, and agree that the SD charts are technically more up to date than paper CAA ones (I can spot a couple of mistakes at least on mine), but if it doesn't have any kind of offical backing or guarantee it seems somewhat pointless, considering any time saved due to the efficiency of the software would be wasted, and then some, checking the same information again against official sources. I therefore struggle to see what the benefit of using SD would be - am I missing something?

I understand there are some digital publications with the official CAA charts, but is there anything that offers the same kind of synoptic 'all-in-one' planning solution that SD does, but with official sources and guarantee? Something that it is possible to completely rely on for the purposes of flight planning when on the ground.

If I were to use such a solution, then in the air I would just be using paper printouts of any relevant information. SD for example lets you print out the customised chart once you have your route sorted out, the airfield plates from the AIP, met info etc. This is mainly because I have not yet invested in a tablet, and this is still not a priority for me at this stage. But also because certain navigational features of the software for in-flight use would prevent me from developing certain skills I was hoping to build during my CPL hour building. So in any case the issue of in-flight failure of electronic navigational aids won't be a concern for me - but I do get your point and agree wholeheartedly.

I guess some of my questions may be worth putting to the SD team directly.

[thing]

I have an Aware GPS which runs the half mil maps. I also have access to a Skydemon. SD to me has the better planning software of the two by far but as I'm used to looking at a paper half mil, seeing it on the GPS is far easier for me to interpret than the SD picture.

The other thing I would say is how many bells and whistles do you need and does it eventually detract from good airmanship? I'm a confirmed GPS guy by the way, not a luddite but looking at some of the capabilities of the latest electronic nav aids makes me think that it's over egging the cake a bit when you're off for a 100 mile wander to the latest bacon butty stop. You have to be trying pretty hard to get lost in the UK even without a GPS, fair enough if you wander off around the nether regions of Europe but I suspect most GA flyers are UK bimblers.

[Prop swinger]

There are no 'guaranteed' sources, even the official sources don't guarantee 100% accuracy. From the Ts & Cs of the NATS AIS website:WE DO NOT WARRANT THAT ANY CONTENT AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE IS ACCURATE, ADEQUATE, FIT FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, COMPLETE, RELIABLE, CURRENT, OR ERROR-FREE.

[wb9999]

Prop swinger, I agree. Odai does seem overly cautious (from this topic and over topics he has commented on). If Odai wants a guaranteed accurate source then he will never get in the air, as even the official CAA charts are not error free.

Odai, you're going to have to accept that being a pilot in command you are responsible for your own actions - no-one is going to hold your hand while you are in the air or provide any sort of indemnity.

Bear in mind that NATS were encouraging pilots to make use of SkyDemon Light during the Olympics last year, and they also promote use of the Airbox Aware device. I doubt NATS would put their name to these products if they were not accurate enough for GA use.

From experience, the TAFs and METARs are the same from every source (Met Office, SkyDemon, websites and other apps that show this info). They are all identical. Same with Notams - they are all identical. The reason? They all come from the same source. IMO, the winds on SkyDemon are much more accurate that the Met Office's spot winds chart.

[1.3VStall]

Any views here on the relative strengths/weaknesses of SkyDemon versus Runway HD?

[Bobby Hart]

I work for SkyDemon so perhaps I can help with a response here.

Aeronautical data is provided to us by Eurocontrol, the same source which NATS use for their AIS pages. Without wanting to disparage the AIS team, I had a look at it once, and resolved never again. It was... quite frustrating by comparison.

Met data is similarly provided by official sources. I think it is quite common to be cautious and to maybe check multiple sources until we have gained your full confidence. I welcome this kind of cautious checking. It keeps us sharp.

The disclaimer is there for legal reasons only, and as pointed out, pretty much everything out there is not certified to be used for any purpose. Regardless of this, if I ever receive a report of an inaccuracy, even if it has been carried to us from within a faulty AIP enty, I drop everything until it has been resolved not just in our data but across the board. In fact, we have been responsible for noticing several errors which had been unchallenged up to that point.

I hope this helps, but if you would like me to elaborate on these points then please ask and I will do my best.

[Odai]

Many thanks again for all the responses.

I have an Aware GPS which runs the half mil maps. I also have access to a Skydemon. SD to me has the better planning software of the two by far but as I'm used to looking at a paper half mil, seeing it on the GPS is far easier for me to interpret than the SD picture.

Same here, there are details I'm used to using that are present on the official charts (which I understand is what is available on the Aware product) but not the SD charts.

The other thing I would say is how many bells and whistles do you need and does it eventually detract from good airmanship? I'm a confirmed GPS guy by the way, not a luddite but looking at some of the capabilities of the latest electronic nav aids makes me think that it's over egging the cake a bit when you're off for a 100 mile wander to the latest bacon butty stop. You have to be trying pretty hard to get lost in the UK even without a GPS, fair enough if you wander off around the nether regions of Europe but I suspect most GA flyers are UK bimblers.

I agree, but as I'm not interested in using the navigational capabilities of this software (don't have the money to spare for a tablet computer in any case), I am only looking for something to help make my planning a bit more efficient and quicker (and possibly more accurate). I'd still technically just be using 'map and compass' in the cockpit, and I plan to stick to that for the duration of my CPL hour building. Having said that, there is technically a GPS in all the aircraft I'm considering hiring when I finally start hour building (just waiting on the CAA to print my license...).

Prop swinger, I agree. Odai does seem overly cautious (from this topic and over topics he has commented on). If Odai wants a guaranteed accurate source then he will never get in the air, as even the official CAA charts are not error free.

Just to be clear, what I'm referring to is not error-free information, but rather information provided by the relevant official sources that would protect me from being prosecuted due to some error on the part of the source resulting in me making some operational mistake with my flying, examples being airspace infringements etc.

I can see that it makes more sense from an operational perspective, as digital publications by their nature are going to be more up to date and accurate in general, but from a legal perspective things are more vague.


Odai, you're going to have to accept that being a pilot in command you are responsible for your own actions - no-one is going to hold your hand while you are in the air or provide any sort of indemnity.

Of course I'm responsible for my own actions, but with regards to the last part of your comment, wouldn't other incidents described in this thread indicate that when mistakes are made by the pilot due to errors in the official publications, the pilot is protected legally?

After all, if I bust some temporary airspace on a flight because no mention is made of it in the NOTAMS, AIP etc published on the NATS site, and I couldn't possibly have been aware of it, how could it have been my fault?

For example, if I were to make such a mistake due to an error in the information provided by a third party not associated with the CAA/NATS like SkyDemon, would the authorities consider it reasonable preparation for a flight on my part to have only referred to such publications as opposed to also referring to the 'official' sources (even though they can be less accurate/up-to-date)?


From experience, the TAFs and METARs are the same from every source (Met Office, SkyDemon, websites and other apps that show this info). They are all identical. Same with Notams - they are all identical. The reason? They all come from the same source. IMO, the winds on SkyDemon are much more accurate that the Met Office's spot winds chart.

I'm assuming the Met Office is the group responsible for providing this information in the UK. I have personally found that, for TAFs, all software that I've tried out (mostly phone apps) gives me older information than what I can get off the Met Office site - which is one of the reasons I'm hesitant. However I have yet to try this feature on SD.

I work for SkyDemon so perhaps I can help with a response here.

Aeronautical data is provided to us by Eurocontrol, the same source which NATS use for their AIS pages. Without wanting to disparage the AIS team, I had a look at it once, and resolved never again. It was... quite frustrating by comparison.

Met data is similarly provided by official sources. I think it is quite common to be cautious and to maybe check multiple sources until we have gained your full confidence. I welcome this kind of cautious checking. It keeps us sharp.

The disclaimer is there for legal reasons only, and as pointed out, pretty much everything out there is not certified to be used for any purpose. Regardless of this, if I ever receive a report of an inaccuracy, even if it has been carried to us from within a faulty AIP enty, I drop everything until it has been resolved not just in our data but across the board. In fact, we have been responsible for noticing several errors which had been unchallenged up to that point.

I hope this helps, but if you would like me to elaborate on these points then please ask and I will do my best.

Many thanks for your input, that was very useful. Can I ask what is the source for the met data? Also, I notice that when I wish to access airfield details (plates, textual information) the software starts a download. However, it doesn't state where the files are being downloaded from. Is it essentially just a link to the AIP, with the data being no different than if I just went onto the site and looked up the relevant PDFs myself? Or is it downloaded from some files archived on SD's servers?

Finally, legal issues aside, are there many pilots who would indeed just use something like SD on its own for flight planning and navigation, without ever referring to the CAA/NATS publications? Do you reckon this is reasonable?

[chrisN]

FWIW, I too only rely upon NATS/AIS notam data, as if I have conformed to that, I am unlikely to be prosecuted for any infringement. To be completely assured, one needs to refresh/update it immediately before starting a flight, or to back it up by calling the 0500 number to see if there are any changes.

(For example, a notam can be raised in very short time if something occurs – I think it was the Flixborough explosion/fire that caused one to be raised during the day, just after it happened, when a restricted area was imposed.)

Chris N

[Pilot.Lyons]

I agree with thing about chart reading.. I feel more comfortable reading half mil chart on my air nav pro than sky demon... But thats my preference.

I have sd on mini ipad and airnav pro on iphone 5 when i fly

Odia:

I know people who solely use sky demon for everything... And they are conviction free... At time of typing :)

[wb9999]

Interestingly, the CAA mention the following on their website:

Sources of information on airspace restrictions for pilots include:
• NOTAMs which are available free of charge at NATS | AIS (http://www.ais.org.uk) or 020 8745 3451 or 3450 (24-hour facility).
• The pre-flight planning tool by NATS and SkyDemon. SkyDemon Light is also free to use, www.skydemonlight and provides graphical NOTAMS and generates alerts when a planned route crosses controlled or restricted airspace.
Source: www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2105 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2105)

If that doesn't put your mind at ease, then nothing will!

The CAA generally only prosecute as last resort, if you've been negligent, dangerous or tried to avoid being caught. If you're honest and do everything you can be reasonably expected to do, then they will likely be OK with you. For example, only a small percentage of airspace infringements lead to prosecution.

If you're still worried about the legalities, here's a list of tips that I've picked up from other pilots for covering my backside:


Save the Notams as a PDF, as evidence that you checked the Notams (from whichever source you use)
Save the weather as a PDF, as evidence that you checked the weather (again, from whichever source you use)
Always use a ATSOCAS or FIS, who will likely advise you if you are approaching an area that has an active Notam - in case you missed a Notam or if there is a short term notam that was activated after you set off.

[stevelup]

as I'm not interested in using the navigational capabilities of this software (don't have the money to spare for a tablet computer in any case), I am only looking for something to help make my planning a bit more efficient and quicker (and possibly more accurate).

SkyDemon Light is perfect for you if you are UK only, and it is free. If you want more detailed planning capabilities along with weather and forecast winds aloft, you need the paid for version. You are not forced to take the navigation capabilities if you aren't going to use them

I can see that it makes more sense from an operational perspective, as digital publications by their nature are going to be more up to date and accurate in general, but from a legal perspective things are more vague.

I don't think it is particularly vague. The legal requirement is that you are diligent - it doesn't specify which source you must use.

Of course I'm responsible for my own actions, but with regards to the last part of your comment, wouldn't other incidents described in this thread indicate that when mistakes are made by the pilot due to errors in the official publications, the pilot is protected legally?

This is -much- more likely to happen if you rely on a paper chart which is out of date before it is even printed. Unless you go to the trouble of marking up your chart with every single amendment, it will never be as accurate as a live digital product.

BUT... not all products are equal. SkyDemon and PocketFMS for example are renowned for being incredibly accurate. Some other software has utterly awful airspace data.

After all, if I bust some temporary airspace on a flight because no mention is made of it in the NOTAMS, AIP etc published on the NATS site, and I couldn't possibly have been aware of it, how could it have been my fault?

You are - in my opinion - far more likely to miss something by using the NATS site than you are using a graphical planning tool.

For example, if I were to make such a mistake due to an error in the information provided by a third party not associated with the CAA/NATS like SkyDemon

Well, SkyDemon are closely associated with NATS in that they provide their official graphical NOTAM tool

would the authorities consider it reasonable preparation for a flight on my part to have only referred to such publications as opposed to also referring to the 'official' sources (even though they can be less accurate/up-to-date)?

Of course they would.

I'm assuming the Met Office is the group responsible for providing this information in the UK. I have personally found that, for TAFs, all software that I've tried out (mostly phone apps) gives me older information than what I can get off the Met Office site - which is one of the reasons I'm hesitant. However I have yet to try this feature on SD.

METARs and TAFs should be the same whatever platform you view them on. I can't see any time delay between AeroWeather on iOS, SkyDemon or or the Met Office website.

The paid for SkyDemon software also includes startlingly accurate winds aloft data.

Also, I notice that when I wish to access airfield details (plates, textual information) the software starts a download. However, it doesn't state where the files are being downloaded from.

The data comes from SD's servers, and they in turn have a live B2B agreement with Eurocontrol.

Finally, legal issues aside, are there many pilots who would indeed just use something like SD on its own for flight planning and navigation, without ever referring to the CAA/NATS publications? Do you reckon this is reasonable?

Yes, a great many people do that now, and yes it is completely reasonable.

[chrisN]

As a point of information, if you use the NATS/AIS source for notam, you don’t need to keep a pdf copy as proof, only a note of the number of the request. They keep copies of all for a period (6 months?) so they can trace if anything was missing from a download that should have been there.

Personally, I find NATS/AIS notam easier for me to use than the graphic sources I have tried (not SD, haven’t used it) but that is a personal preference, and related to gliding (not going in straight lines).

Chris N

[stevelup]

Try it - it's free. It'll do an area brief for you which should be ideal for gliding.

[chrisN]

I tried something like it in beta and it was not ideal for me, nor the other graphic things. Too complex to explain why here.

Regards - Chris