Custom charts startup idea - demand?

[citabria06g]

So I just discovered that Jeppesen no longer print their VFR/GPS charts. A great shame in my opinion, I thought they were very clear and consistency throughout Europe was a big plus. Anyway, several threads on this topic already, so I won't indulge.

My question is: would there be a market for selling custom VFR charts, where pilots could adjust the appearance and coverage area? This idea comes from a few observations:

- Some pilots (especially UK-based) didn't like the Jepps, they preferred the CAA half-mils, but every time they flew to Europe they had to contend with differing French/German formats;
- Some pilots "kind of" liked the Jepps but would have made a few changes, maybe the colour of certain airspace boxes, or would have made some features more prominent;
- Some pilots were forced to buy two or three charts because they were based in the "border area" between two coverage zones - I was based in Luxembourg for a while and had to buy three charts, LF3 ED3 and EBEH;
- Some pilots loved the format but would have liked a quarter-mil equivalent;
- Mobile FliteDeck and SkyDemon are great products but not everyone likes them/can justify the investment/agrees on "no paper" attitude.

What if you could choose exactly what to print on two sides of an A1 sheet of paper? Following options could be available:
- single or double sided print, for discussion sake let's say GBP 20/35;
- print two halves of one picture (classic north/south split) OR have a completely different (non-adjacent) area on the back AND/OR change the scale on the back, maybe half-mil on one side and quarter-mil on the other;
- custom area of coverage (drag a box on a map to select your area);
- custom colours and symbols for airports/CAS/hazards/AIAA/etc.

I've been playing with the idea for a couple of days, my main concern is does it make sense commercially - not looking to get rich here, just a topup to a full-time employee salary. Lots of players on the market, was surprised to see that DFS, once a German-only affair, now publish charts for a lot of surrounding countries as well. Even areas of southern/eastern Europe which were historically problematic now seem to have their own ICAO chart suppliers.

I did look up the digital products: not so impressed by Jeppesen and their coverage/pricing structure, Skydemon looks great and gets good reviews, would be tough to compete with.

So, would you buy a paper chart if you could customize it to your liking?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'd buy them certainly. I really liked the Jepp charts, and now am printing multiple A4 CAA views using MediaMap.

Your pricing seens about right to me.

G

[OhNoCB]

I'm a big fan of technology so I am perhaps skewed to the digital side, but as I have a Skydemon subscription, I would simply print out charts from Skydemon. Okay so they aren't FULLY customisable, but there is a choice of style, and in terms of viewing and printing, you can choose the area and choose the vertical airspace parameters, something very useful if you leave in an area with complex airspace layers, and know that you won't be going above 4000' then you can get rid of all the airways etc above that.

[ChickenHouse]

I guess there is not enough demand to justify commercial ops for such.

Jepp is now forcing people into their electronic version and most pilots are already using some kind of electronic charts, be it Skydemon, Airnav Pro or whatsoever. For backup reasons the printouts from these solutions are good enough and by some respect better then the former yearly edition, so there is some benefit. BTW: I am not a friend of Jepp either and stopped using the "unified appearance" due to a simple reason - to do so obscures some of the local intentions. I have to admit, different countries have different authorities and thoughts for pilots, so once in a while using local appearance charts does have some benefit. One example from recent flying in Hungary: FIS advised to stay clear of a special colored danger area - it was neither marked that way in SD nor ANP, but we had the ICAO chart to identify (without FIS we would have violated that tiny airspace ...).

[abgd]

I bought the 1 mil Transair chart and was dismayed to find that it came with a disclaimer that they make no guarantee of its accuracy and indeed it seems to miss details such as RAF Boulmer and the associated HIRTA.

My question would be: how will you ensure that you provide an accurate chart that's fit for purpose? Would you be printing other peoples' charts under licence or somehow trying to collate airspace information from all the databases in order to show strips, airspace to generate your own custom charts?

I'd be tempted if I lived anywhere near the gaps between charts, which I currently don't. I do really like the idea of a common chart format for Europe though.

[Jan Olieslagers]

No aviation map comes with any kind of guarantee. If ever there's a discrepancy between a map and the AIP, then the AIP is right, and the map is wrong.

The only difference might perhaps be that, if one busts some airspace or other, a map published by a government agency, preferably the one in charge of said airspace, would offer better defence than any commercial product.

But I have yet to come across a court case for such a situation.

[Genghis the Engineer]

No aviation map comes with any kind of guarantee. If ever there's a discrepancy between a map and the AIP, then the AIP is right, and the map is wrong.

The only difference might perhaps be that, if one busts some airspace or other, a map published by a government agency, preferably the one in charge of said airspace, would offer better defence than any commercial product.

But I have yet to come across a court case for such a situation.

I clipped a bit of airspace near LHR a few years ago, was ticked off by ATC but not reported.

Looking hard at my Jeppesen chart at the time, I found a significant ambiguity in the markings which had contributed to this. I flagged it to Jeppesen, and to their credit, they acknowledged this and fixed it in the following edition.

G

[Jan Olieslagers]

Thank you, G., but nothing new there. I do not wish to cast a doubt on any publisher! Errors and typos happen in every business; and it is only to be expected that a positive suggestion will be acted upon.

But HAD you been reported, and HAD the authorities taken further action, then I do not think a reference to your map would have done you much good. Neither would its publisher come to your help, or take responsability in your place - they simply can't be expected to.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I disagree to some extent. A well run aviation safety culture doesn't go looking to blame anybody, it goes looking for problems to fix. Not always, but most times that I've been party to a problem in aviation, the emphasis has quite rightly been on solutions, not punishment.

G

[Jan Olieslagers]

I can see what you mean, G., and you are certainly right that the first purpose is safety, and that errors ought to be met with in a constructive way.

Still I dare you to go flying over a French nuclear power plant, on a day of perfect visibility, with no other plane in sight.

Also, staying out where we shouldn't come is import in litigation: suppose you were to do a midair, and your insurer found out you were where you shouldn't be, they'll be quick to drop your claim.

So yes, we do need accurate maps firstly, AND secondly we need someone to put the blame on if errors in the map bring us in trouble.

[edited for better wording]

[Genghis the Engineer]

Still I dare you to go flying over a French nuclear power plant, on a day of perfect visibility, with no other plane in sight.

Depends I suppose on what height, and whether I'm

(a) Lost, and not dealing with it awfully well.

(b) Being a deliberate idiot

(c) Dealing with an emergency, and still on "Aviate", so not thinking hard about "Navigate".

I would expect, in a reasonably rational world (okay, you did say France, so maybe that's not the case here), to be treated differently in each case.

G

[Johnm]

I almost never use paper charts now except for spacial perception over a wider area than an ipad or Garmin screen can easily show.

[citabria06g]

Thank you all for your feedback.

To answer abgd, terrain data and ground references (streets, rivers, etc) would come from a licensed GIS source. As for the superimposed aero data, I'm a software engineer and have developed a program that can import a number of public sources (including all European AIPs). Of course there would be some quality control before selling the stuff.

But from the responses so far, it looks like the demand for paper is really low and digital products have already won. Too bad, although I must admit Skydemon is one impressive piece of software.