AERAD Charts - What is happening
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly agree they are shocking. The layout and details are often just crap, poorly thought out and a safety hazard. I look forward to the first whinge in CHIRP.....
Fortunately, I fly into LGW so often I can leave the charts in the place they can do the most good,
Right under the cup holders........
Fortunately, I fly into LGW so often I can leave the charts in the place they can do the most good,
Right under the cup holders........
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure we'll get used to the format in time (with hopefully many of the amendments posted). I like the engine fail boxout on the SID plates - although the one I'm looking at tells me to fly a 160º turn at "V2 TKOF flaps" - correct me if I'm wrong (please) but I didn't think V2 was a safe manoeuvring speed?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the security thread has shown, CHIRP is only effective as a way of telling other pilots, controllers and Engineers about a hazard. It is completely ineffective as a way of enforcing regulatory change.
If these charts cause a safety hazard, MOR it! Let the manufacturer enjoy the experience of SRG coming and visiting, as regularly as possible.
To be honest, I doubt this will be necessary. Most operators will probably decide that if we are to be forced to have Jepps type presentation, we may as well buy Jepps. The manufacturer will then go bust. I am sure we can all figure out who their employees are on this thread, I suggest they prepare their cvs immediately.
If these charts cause a safety hazard, MOR it! Let the manufacturer enjoy the experience of SRG coming and visiting, as regularly as possible.
To be honest, I doubt this will be necessary. Most operators will probably decide that if we are to be forced to have Jepps type presentation, we may as well buy Jepps. The manufacturer will then go bust. I am sure we can all figure out who their employees are on this thread, I suggest they prepare their cvs immediately.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure we can all figure out who their employees are on this thread, I suggest they prepare their cvs immediately.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The eng fail bit on the SID is indeed bizarre. If one of my engines quits I'd rather fly the profile published by my airline than something dreamt up by the idiots who designed these charts. 
My straw poll of crews comes to a pretty unanimous 'unimpressed'.
My straw poll of crews comes to a pretty unanimous 'unimpressed'.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: More than a tank of fuel away from home.
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed. All crews I have spoken to are not too pleased with the changes.
Mistakes, small print. Very hap hazard layout, have they never heard of 'standardisation'?
Can someone explain to me why a SID should now be split into two sections (and written in two different parts of the plate)
The first section is called "Initial climb" I think. The second goes by the name of the SID designator. Try glancing at that one while flying an aircraft with a failed autopilot in cr@ppy weather.
Why are the notes now scattered all over the shop, instead of being in a neat numbered list as before?
Personally I think this is a large step backwards in safety and progression.
SSS
Mistakes, small print. Very hap hazard layout, have they never heard of 'standardisation'?
Can someone explain to me why a SID should now be split into two sections (and written in two different parts of the plate)
The first section is called "Initial climb" I think. The second goes by the name of the SID designator. Try glancing at that one while flying an aircraft with a failed autopilot in cr@ppy weather.
Why are the notes now scattered all over the shop, instead of being in a neat numbered list as before?
Personally I think this is a large step backwards in safety and progression.
SSS
I'm not an AERAD employee, but please don't blame them for this; the new plates were apparently produced by EAG in Sweden on the instructions of the new owners of EAG/AERAD, (Navtech Canada), apparently to 'standardise' the companies products.
But why were the chart users not consulted over this change? Where has the concept of customer service gone?
If the majority of pilots feel these charts are not acceptable then representations should be made to the Companies, BALPA, IPA and the relevant aviation Authorities.
I am sure that if the companies involved cancel their contracts with Aerad and change to other charts suppliers we would see some rapid changes!
If the majority of pilots feel these charts are not acceptable then representations should be made to the Companies, BALPA, IPA and the relevant aviation Authorities.
I am sure that if the companies involved cancel their contracts with Aerad and change to other charts suppliers we would see some rapid changes!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one of my engines quits I'd rather fly the profile published by my airline than something dreamt up by the idiots who designed these charts.
According to my source, the 'new' AERAD charts are a 'standard' layout; standard as in line with Navtech Canada's existing products. Whether these are actually available in Europe I don't know.
At the risk of repeating myself, I understand the UK Flight Safety Committee has always had 'concerns' about charts and plates not produced by a national aviation agency ie products from AERAD, Jeppesen, Navtech, EAG, as there is no machinery for independent monitoring of the accuracy of the information provided; Jeppesen for instance maintain their self monitoring system is foolproof, but threads in other forums regarding their VFR/GPS charts indicate innaccuracies have occured.
It strikes me there is a flight safety issue involved here so maybe everyone should contact the UKFSC (based at Fairoaks last I heard) to express their concerns.
At the risk of repeating myself, I understand the UK Flight Safety Committee has always had 'concerns' about charts and plates not produced by a national aviation agency ie products from AERAD, Jeppesen, Navtech, EAG, as there is no machinery for independent monitoring of the accuracy of the information provided; Jeppesen for instance maintain their self monitoring system is foolproof, but threads in other forums regarding their VFR/GPS charts indicate innaccuracies have occured.
It strikes me there is a flight safety issue involved here so maybe everyone should contact the UKFSC (based at Fairoaks last I heard) to express their concerns.
Last edited by chevvron; 15th Aug 2008 at 16:40.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere in Southern England
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a further problem for those of us who use the Aerad executive manuals since within the same binder there are now three different formats of Aerad chart. There is now the "new" format, the "previous" format and the "format before that". For instance Biggin Hill is in the "new" format, Farnborough is in the "previous" format and the airfields in northern France are in the "format before that". Therefore on a single round trip, with an instrument approach on the outbound leg and on the return leg a diversion following a missed approach, I can be faced with making three approaches and using a different format of approach chart for each approach.
Edited to add - Chevvron is correct the UK Flight Safety Committee is still based at Fairoaks
Edited to add - Chevvron is correct the UK Flight Safety Committee is still based at Fairoaks
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the engine fail boxout on the SID plates - although the one I'm looking at tells me to fly a 160º turn at "V2 TKOF flaps" - correct me if I'm wrong (please) but I didn't think V2 was a safe manoeuvring speed?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see the format has been brought out for LHR and the taxi chart is frankly a disgrace. In the old style I could have one page open which showed taxi ways and holding points, ie, Alpha taxiway and PLUTO, HORKA etc.
Now, in the new style, there is one chart for taxiways, and a separate chart displaying holding points! How are we supposed to use that at night, in the rain, keep flipping pages spending too long head down during a critical phase of flight?!
How and to whom do we complain?
Now, in the new style, there is one chart for taxiways, and a separate chart displaying holding points! How are we supposed to use that at night, in the rain, keep flipping pages spending too long head down during a critical phase of flight?!
How and to whom do we complain?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having used these charts all summer I have to say that they are without doubt the worst IFR charts that I have ever seen.................. Jepps are far from perfect but they are light years ahead of this junk.
Quite agree, and it's about to get worse. One of our pilots reckons they are about to start sorting all the charts by airfield name, if it has one, instead of city. So search under S for Amsterdam but still find Glasgow under G because it hasn't got a name, should be fun over Africa or Russia when you need to divert in a hurry. What sort of an idiot thinks this stuff up?
Transparency International
Look at EAGs LIME/BGY/Bergamo plates: The Italians made a substantial and permanent change to the missed approach procedure in april but EAG has yet to print a new chart - thats is more than 7 months !!!