Snooze, no arguments from me on any of that.
Still, I'd like to highlight that because Jeppesen only reprint what they're given (and I have no problems with that either) there may (MAY) be an error on the chart that isn't picked up. If crews are unaware that Jeppesen don't validate what they publish, then they may be lulled in to a false sense of security.
Jeppesen are not responsible for the procedure or its safety. The relevant state authority is. Unless you are suggesting that Jeppesen's quality control over the reproduction process is defective, there is no safety issue involved.
I don't believe that Jeppesen's process is defective. Where the process falls down is at the source. If the source data is wrong, then there is nothing Jeppesen can do about it other than to highlight the obvious errors to the relevant State Authority.
I agree that the safety issue does indeed rest with the State Authority. But as users, we need to be aware of the difference between commercially supplied aeronautical information (no safety-of-flight focus) and that supplied by the State Authority (safety-of-flight focus under ICAO regs) - even if it comes in a different format that doesn't look as good or from a service that isn't as responsive.
Might I suggest that the inflexibility of AsA is a result of the "safety-of-flight" imperative which requires them to have a long lead time so they may validate the data they are about to publish?
Trashy
