Jepps

[Baron Captain ?]

Just a quick legality question on the Jepps.

The Canberra ILS minimum has been reduced by notam by 100ft, but only mentions DAPS...
It Reads:

C209/04
AMD DAP EAST. RWY 35 ILS OR ILS/DME OR LLZ/DME DATED 10 JUN 04. ADD FOLLOWING NEW ILS MINIMA
2100 (230) 0.8 NOTE: MINIMUM MISSED APPROACH CLIMB GRADIENT 4.6%.
FROM 07 081600 TO PERM



Now because it doesn't mention Jepps at all does this mean that LEGALLY we have to use the old higher minimum until JEPPS sends us new ammendments..???????????????????????

Please reply as has created much discussion/argument with Training Captain..:confused: :ok: :{

[OverheadPanel]

My undertsanding is that Jepps are just a copy of the Australian regulations and charts (only in a format that is readable :) )- therefore unless Jepps have already applied such an ammendment (unlikely) which is referred to in the notam (check Jepps chart notams) then you must apply the notam to Jepps aswell.

The notams produced by Australia will only refer to Australian publications, as I would assume be the case in other countries, where their notams would refer to their local Aeronatical charts/regulations.

[hoss]

I would say that the NOTAM has you covered and you can use the lower DA whatever your 'brand'. However, only use it if you can achieve the Min Missed Apch Grad.

Remember over in Jeppland they design there charts off the DAP. I have just checked Revision Number 18-04 and the the Canberra 11-1 has not been updated to reflect.

Another way to argue this one would be to reverse the situation, what would your 'friend' say if the NOTAM had said NEW ILS MINIMA 2300 (430) 1.5 . Would he/she not apply the NOTAM because it's only applies to DAP EAST?

Back in the bunker, hoss:)

[MoFo]

Baron.

Are you a lawyer or a pilot?

What is a Notam for?

The Notam states the new minima and gradient. Why wouldn't you use that criteria on an ILS at Canberra?

Jeeeeeeez. Gimme a break.

[alidad]

MoFo,
The man is not a lawyer , but a THINKING pilot. I consider it a fair question as the legalities and fine print in this business will one day bite you on the arse (note British spelling).
Your posts indicate that you work for a major operator- not all of us work in a sheltered workshop.

[Square Bear]

I'd say that Hoss has a pretty good handle on it and IMO logic dictates the same answer.

Similar to the following NOTAM.

GLADSTONE (YGLA)
C12/04
AMD AIP DAP EAST
AMD RWY 28 VOR OR NDB DATED 27 NOV 03 TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
NOTE 1. MAX IAS: INITIAL CAT A/B 140 KT
FROM 02 112110 TO PERM


I don't think the defence of exceeding the speed because you were using Jepps would hold much water.

[Kaptin M]

RWY 35 ILS OR ILS/DME OR LLZ/DME DATED 10 JUN 04.....for a strart, does the Jeppesen chart meet this requirement?

Jeppesen will issue updated charts - generally before they are due to become effective.

IMO, the NOTAM must make specific reference to the publication concerned.

To alter the published Jeppesen minima by 100' because a NOTAM advises you that another publisher's chart is incorrect is inviting disaster! Chances are Jeppesen published the CORRECT minima at the time, however the other publisher made a MISTAKE, and printed the WRONG minima.

Jeppesen may also issue "tailored procedures" for certain companies - which, although unlikely to be different for an ILS approach (except for the missed approach, in certain cases) - involving slightly different inbound tracks to other publications.

CALLING Oz Expat....CALLING Oz Expat...we need your advice.

[Square Bear]

I was my understanding that Jepps information was the same as that used by ASA (excepting I guess the "tailored procedures") so if that was the case why couldn't you use the same minima on a Jepp plate as to that on DAPS. It is the same info but, as someone has said, displayed better.

It is not just a case of applying a minus 100 feet to that printed on the Jepp Plate, BUT actually applying a whole new DA of 2100feet. To call that inviting disaster is perhaps a little bit of an overstatement.

As Hoss said would you continue to use the Jepp minima if the Notam actually increased the minima by a few hundred feet. Now thats what I call inviting a disaster.

And if it makes you feel better, or more legal, go to the ASA website and print of a ASA CB ILS plate and use it instead of your JEPP.

Anyway not having a go, just my interpretation of it all.

[missy]

Jepps frequently contains error because they are an interpretation of the document provided by ASA. It is beyond me why companies prefer Jepps?? I would argue that the NOTAM issued by ASA amends an ASA document. In time, Jepps will amend their own documents in any manner they choose to do so.

[Dehavillanddriver]

NOTAMS refer to AIP/DAP because they are the publication over which Airservices has control.

They can't issue NOTAMS with Jepp references because they don't "know" what they are.

NOTAMS such as the Canberra one amend a procedure and as such are not dependent upon who has printed the chart.

If Airservices issued NOTAMS with Jepp references and they got the reference wrong they would be liable - thus the lawyers have effectively made it more difficult for us to do our job.

Missy, you are partially correct - Jepp documents are reproductions not interpretations of ASA DATA. Jepp are effectively a republisher - they don't generate any of this data themselves - all they do is re-arrange the provided data into their format.

[Tinstaafl]

I'm in the 'It does *NOT* apply to Jepps' camp.

The NOTAM is very specific about what document it applies to. Like performance charts, you can't extrapolate that to mean it applies to any other publication.

To use the new minima using Jepps then Jeppesen would have had to send you an amendment for THEIR document.

[SOPS]

Being an Oz expat, but not OZexpat..I will put in my bit. Our operations manual states that we must use the higher of Jepp (the charts we use on board) or NOTAM minima. So I have to assume that if all of a sudden Canberra drops to a minima of 16 feet, and Jepp is slow to catch up, we will always use the higher.

Having said that, we use LIDO flight plan and Notam system. This produces "company notams" for each flight. So I think, maybe, if Canberra went to 16 feet, and our company approved it, we could produce a "company notam" in the pre flight breifing that approved decent below the published minima. ( This of course, is always approved first by the authorities, before the argument starts).

Anyway let the discussion continue

Regards SOPS

[PGH]

Does this mean that the firm which designs and publishes the procedures has its house in order; while the firm which pirates the information hasn't reacted with the same interest or urgency.

[Desert Dingo]

No. It just shows that you have not read the previous posts.
There is no piracy involved.

[Kelly Slater]

The question is valid and so far unanswered. For an answer, you must approach CASA. Send an email to your local FOI and for good measure, send one to Jeppesen, especially now that they have missed the change in the latest ammendment. Jepps documents are supposed to be up to date. They are amended more ofter than DAPs but errors often go on for many amendments. If you find an error, the responsible thing to do is to point it out to people.

[Capt Claret]

I've always found Jeppesen's to be very proactive about mistakes. Both Geoff Brown & Darren Mattingley in Dandenong, if advised of errors, will pass them on to Denver for rectification, which on the few occasions I've tracked it has been quite prompt.

At least with Jepps one doesn't get pages and pages of pen amendments or cut and paste amendments, the day after Jepp amendment are issued, as one does with AIP stuff. :*

[Kaptin M]

The question is valid and so far unanswered.

I beg to differ, Kelly - I believe the consensus of opinion is that one would NOT alter the Jeppesen minimum by 100', because the NOTAM does not make reference to Jeppesen, but to the AIP/DAP chart(s).

(For those who jumped on me for stating that it would be " inviting disaster" by applying a 100' reduction to the correct Jeppessen minima because of the NOTAM...does that mean that you would willingly bust minma by 100' in normal ops??
NO, I didn't think so - because it may be "inviting disaster"!)

[CaptainMidnight]

The NOTAM refers to the Australian AIP product, no-one elses. If a pilot chooses to use someone else's product (which may or may not be correct), then it is pilot responsibility to determin if the information contained in the NOTAM applies to that product as well. I suspect that would be the answer from CASA.

To safeguard against misinterpretation, that would be why some companies say to use the higher of Jepp or NOTAM minima.

[Capn Bloggs]

Claret,
Nonsense. The number of NOTAMs and "cut and pastes" are so low to definitely justify using AIP. You also don't have to put up with the subject of this thread. Multipage Jepp amendments every two weeks @#$%s me off, espeically when a lot of them are corrections to their own balls-ups. And you don't even get a spotters fee!
The only good thing about Jepp is the thin paper, the page numbering and the vertical hinge.

[Capt Claret]

Well Bloggs, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I made the change to Jeppesen manuals before our masters mandated the change because I was thoroughly pithed off at the lack of service from the Publications Centre, and multiple pages of Notam corrections, and four whopping sets of ammendments per anum.

Aside from the chagrin of going "off shore" I've not regretted my decision and have only ever been pleased that Jeppesen's actually offer service.

ASA might well have improved over the last 8 or so years but once a business has lost a customer it's pretty hard to get them back.

[Neddy]

As part of Australia signing up to the Chicago convention and the ICAO process it has a responsibility to publish aeronautical information. It discharges it's responsibility by having Airservices Australia publish AIP and alll the associated documents of which DAPs are included.

Various onsellers including JEPPS take that information and republish it in a format that is suitable to there customer base.

The fact that it refers to DAPs is simply discharging a requirement to provide official notification. This is the same as putting out a NOTAM, or indeed an AIP Supp, to advise of a change to AIP . JEPPS republishies AIP and any NOTAM advising of a change means it changes the JEPPS as well as AIP.

Consequently I think you will find that the NOTAM was an extension of that process ie. publishing a revised minima for YSCB. The minima for the approach has changed and it wouldn't matter a rats which publication, if any, you use. To wait for JEPPS notification is in my opinion unfounded.

cheers

[Bill Smith]

Spoke to Jeppesen in Dandenong today.


As previously stated, the Jepp's are a copy of information published by Airservices.

They informed me that any NOTAM relating to DAP is applicable to The Jeppesen series as well.

[112.3]

when are the new maps getting updated?? ever since this NAS bull**** happened I have heard that nobody is printing up any maps.

I have lost a few maps and I am starting a new job where I need maps for a certain area.

can I get jeppessen to replace them?

[alidad]

Bill Smith,
You have brought a a completely mindless thread to an end by bring FACTS into the argument! Spoil sport!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!