Which chart are you using?

[Bungfai]

We are switching from Jepp to Lido.

[Rainboe]

After a working career using Aerads, I now use Jeppesens. I'm appalled- I think they're awful. Primitive, old fashioned presentation, lack of colour, difficult to read contours, thin weak paper like old fashioned toilet paper, poor display of information (I've noticed state speed controls seem to be often omitted). I think people only use them because they don't know the alternatives. Long live Aerad! What are Lidos?

[loader]

Poor guy.
I´m missing my Jeppesen. Even if it was very heavy in the flight case. :ugh:
We also switched from Jeppesen to Lido about 1,5 years ago. And I hate these charts.
The format is definately not made for a cockpit (we have DIN A4 (twice as big as Jeppi with less infos)).
There are a lot of mistakes on the charts and you really have to search for all the data you need. And don´t think, that one chart is like the other. The freqs are always somewhere else and so on. :confused:
They omit parking stands on the airport chart... :eek:
And the guy with ne new package arrives always during the shortest turn around in the day and wants the old charts immediately. :}
But the most annoying peace is this big :mad: bag with the folders.
Wherever you put it in the cockpit. It´s in the way.
And the folders hold for about 1 week and then they are worn out.
Short: I´ll do everything to get my Jeppesen back.

[captjns]

I used the US government issued charts... very plain and direct.

I currently use JEPPS which contains adequate and acurate data.

To the poster who needs color in his charts... bring crayons.

[Rainboe]

Jepp approach charts are so primitive. I can take my crayons and try and make sense from a few spot heights what the local terrain is like, but I would far rather, and it's far safer, to use an Aerad chart with atlas-type terrain contouring and colouring to see what you're descending through! Having used a Jepp approach chart on Chambery, all I can say is you don't know what you're missing because probably all you have ever known or used is that 30 year outdated chart style! But while criticism of the hallowed Jepps is taken as criticism of the good old red, white and blue, we're not going to get anywhere! They're awful.

[captjns]

But while criticism of the hallowed Jepps is taken as criticism of the good old red, white and blue, we're not going to get anywhere! They're awful.

Which r/w/b are you referring to? The US, UK, French???? Just kidding.

Actually I saw chart tha LH pilots use. They are probably the best laid out charts I have ever seen.

[Fly3]

My Jepps are in colour. Maybe you get what you pay for.

[yrvld]

hi everybody

while I've never seen the aerad, I understood they are indeed the nicest charts you can have.
But I've used both Jepp and Lido and, back then, I loved Lidos at first site.
Just to realise in short time they are full of mistakes and omissions, and to want my jepp back, with no colors and all.. On the LIdo's I am speaking about, there were BIG mistakes, like wrong navaid freq, etc.
On the other hand, they had nice features, like a drawing of the terrain underneath the vert profile, the MSA sectors depicted right on the plan view, and so on.
After a few years now, I see Jepp is starting to publish coloured charts themselves (only for some countries, unfortunately), and things seem to start moving slowly.
Even so, I'll still choose Jepp over Lido, at least for the time.
I know Swiss is using Lido for quite a while now.. I would be curious to see how they like it.:confused:
rgds.

[F4F]

Used Jepps (thin paper, loaded with irrelevant data).
Used Lido (scarcely legible at night, fuzzy ground charts, zillions of mistakes)

Now using EAG, definitely the best IMHO :ok:

[Bungfai]

Wonder how many chart providers out there.Long time ago we used KSSU chart according to SAS which I like best then we swithed to Jepps. After new management we swithed again to Lido(Lufthansa). At first sight we love the colorful chart but after awhile we find it hard to use like the paper size and quality,it wares pretty fast. And infos for Asia are less than Jepps. Heard that Lufthansa themselves use Jepps for the far east, is this true??

[fmgc]

Captjns,

Your remark is terribly flippant when we are talking one of the most significant tools towards avoiding CFIT.

Coloured terrain makes identifying terrain much easier.

[Piltdown Man]

To date, the best charts I have used have been AERADS. Small details such as stand nomenclature (for example - squares, rounds and triangles) and the method in the use of colour allows these charts tell you a complicated story very quickly. I have used Jepps (and do every now and again for charters) and consider them "light-weight" and lacking in user friendliness. The charts I use on a daily basis are the company's own and whilst they appear to be accurate, there are some anomalies and they also lack some of the useful details of the AERADS. But does anybody know of a supplier of LEDGIBLE en-route/airways charts?

[keithl]

Well, "Best" - what does that mean? 'Cos you can't have everything. Aerads are clearest (they'll never be known as EAGs!), Jepps most reliable. Never heard of Lidos.

[captjns]

Captjns, Your remark is terribly flippant when we are talking one of the most significant tools towards avoiding CFIT.

Coloured terrain makes identifying terrain much easier.

Put away the snuff and stuff the hankie up your sleeve, put down the sword and get a grip:= . Colors on a chart ain't going to keep you out of the mountains. As stated before in an earlier post an LH captain showed me his charts to which I thought were very methodical and uncluttered in their presentation... and yes... better than the Jepps.

[fmgc]

captjns

You are totally mistaken, colour definitely helps.

In fact I am fairly certain that accident reports have commented that depiction of terrain on charts should be required (most do but a significant number don't) and that if they are in colour it makes it much easier to quickly interpret the chart.

It may well have been after the tragic loss of the Dan Air 727 at TFN.

I much prefer Aerads, from what I can understand though they contain many inaccuracies and Aerad don't send somebody to your aeroplane to change the charts over.

[captjns]

FMCG

I agree with you. The more information a chart contains without adding to the clutter the safer the operation will be.

There was a time that JEPP did some beta testing with color and more detailed contour lines on their charts. The area charts and approach charts were easier to understand even in a dimly lit cockpit during evening operations. This is going back more than 10 years ago. I think Denver was one of the beta test areas they did this on. And as quickly as they appeared with great reception, they disappeared.

Other than NOS and JEPP (both US charts) and the charts from the LH captain, I have never seen any other format. Do most of the airlines (not the pilots) in Europe prefer other charts to JEPP? Are the other charts more expensive than the JEPPS?

There was one other formatted chart I saw many years back has well laid out. It had ATC frequencies for locations based on flight levels too.

[Rainboe]

I spent years in BA flying worldwide using Aerad approach charts, and Aerad airway charts for everywhere but the US/Canada which only came on Jeppesen airway charts. I never used Jepp approach charts until this year. Aerads are twice as legible, and seem to give all the important data accurately. I can't say I noticed many mistakes, and they are updated pretty frequently. I see some older dates on the Jepp approach charts! The other big pluses- the airfield/approach charts are bundled into booklets for busy terminals, and the paper is thicker than 1940s style toilet paper. It is so useful having just a few coloured contours with occasional spot heights- think coming into Bogota, Chambery (4 1/2 degree ILS glideslope), Caracas, MEX, Hong Kong, Seychelles and esp. Mauritius. I'm surprised Jepp actually considered contouring and rejected it. But as we end the era of paper approach charts, perhaps it will be put right with EFBs for all! Everything on a laptop (just don't spill your coffee on it).

Can someone explain what, and who, are Lidos and EAGs?

[F4F]

Wonder how my boss's gonna feel when I'll tell him I need 3 of them EFBs :}
One on the yoke (ooh, that will be handy for sure!) for the approach plate, one on the rear side for the ground map, and one on the forward side for the minimum vectoring area. As with many things nowadays, only a change really matters :ugh:

Or... am I really getting older that fast :\

[fmgc]

Well all I can say is that in my Co we changed from Aerads to Jepps and nearly everybody preferred Aerads, even after they had time to get used to the change and come to terms with it.

We eventually got the Aerad Suppliments (Comms, Met, Time, Rules etc) back as they are so much more user friendly than the book of words from Jepps.

Apparently the cost is about the same but Jepps provide a man to go to all your aeroplanes and change the nav bags every fortnight. Aerad do not. So there is definitely a resource cost saving for the airline.

[Craggenmore]

Can someone explain what, and who, are Lidos

LIDO's is/are Lufthansa Systems' new, electronically generated navigation chart system.

http://www.lhsystems.com/topic1/2004/press_04_04_statement_drfranke.htm

[Denti]

Used to use LIDO charts during flightschool and kinda liked them. My current company uses Jepp charts and gets the tailor made airport booklets from them, one booklet for every normally used airport and all normal alternates each, normal paper plates in the route manual for all other airports. The booklets are kinda neat, some even contain some additional general data like weather data over the year, pictures from several positions of the aerodrome etc, actually quite helpful if you fly to a place you haven't been to before. Jepp doesnt change maps for us, we have our own navigation department that takes care of that and decides for which airports we need booklets (and fmc company routes etc). Paper is flimsy and wears out very fast if not in a booklet, thats certainly a problem.

[reynoldsno1]

Chart producers are not original thinkers, nor do they design the procedures. They are republishers reformatting information supplied by individual States. If there are mistakes in the source data, it is likely this will be reproduced unless queried.

[xetroV]

Put away the snuff and stuff the hankie up your sleeve, put down the sword and get a grip:= . Colors on a chart ain't going to keep you out of the mountains. As stated before in an earlier post an LH captain showed me his charts to which I thought were very methodical and uncluttered in their presentation... and yes... better than the Jepps.
There have been several pretty thorough CFIT studies, and these studies certainly did show the benefits of using coloured maps. Colours on a chart can be one factor that can help you keep out of the mountains, and that's what aviation safety is all about: layered defences.

The assumption that colour means clutter is wrong, as proven by several 'other' charting companies. In terms of clutter, Jeppesen charts are amongst the worst anyway, even in black and white.

The Flight Safety Foundation (FSF) CFIT Task Force made the following recommendations to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO):

* That requirements for the use of ground-proximity warning system (GPWS) be broadened. ICAO in 1998 amended its requirement for GPWS to include all aircraft with maximum takeoff weights above 5,700 kilograms/12,500 pounds or authorized to carry more than nine passengers;

* That early model GPWS equipment be replaced. ICAO in 1999 introduced an amendment requiring predictive terrain hazard warning functions in GPWS equipment (enhanced GPWS or terrain awareness and warning systems) in turbine airplanes certified on or after Jan. 1, 2001, and with maximum takeoff weights above 15,000 kilograms (33,069 pounds) or authorized to carry more than 30 passengers;

* That color-shaded depictions of terrain heights be shown on instrument approach charts. ICAO said that requirements for such depictions are scheduled to be introduced in November 2001;

* That aircraft operators be warned against using three-pointer altimeters and drum-pointer altimeters. ICAO in November 1998 adopted amendments prohibiting the use of these altimeters in commercial aircraft operated under instrument flight rules and warning that “due to the long history of misreadings, the use of drum-pointer altimeters is not recommended” in other aircraft;

* That the design and presentation of nonprecision instrument approach procedures be improved with a standard three-degree approach slope, except where prohibited by obstacles. ICAO said that requirements for such improvements are scheduled to be adopted in November 2001;

* That automated altitude call-outs be used. ICAO in 1998 amended the standards for operations manuals to require that they include “instructions on the maintenance of altitude awareness and the use of automated or flight crew call-out”; and,

* That the important CFIT-avoidance benefits provided by the global positioning system/global navigation satellite system (GPS/GNSS) be recognized. ICAO in 1995 cited the urgent need for progress in applying satellite navigation to nonprecision instrument approach procedures. In 1998, ICAO introduced GNSS area navigation procedures. ICAO said that criteria to support basic GNSS operations in all phases of flight are scheduled to be introduced in November 2001.

The task force also recommended that all civil aviation authorities adopt the use of hectopascals for altimeter settings. (ICAO and the World Meteorological Organization both introduced requirements in 1986 for the use of hectopascals for altimeter settings.)

http://www.flightsafety.org/cfit3.html

[Oktas8]

Chart producers ... are republishers ... If there are mistakes in the source data, it is likely this will be reproduced unless queried.

I am quite familiar with both the national AIP (source data) and Jepp's offering in this country. Jeppesen charts contain many errors, most minor, some more important. I contacted Jeppesen about one of the more salient errors. They replied by acknowledging a possible error, and saying it might be fixed within the next twelve months. Or it might not.

(But they accepted my employer's money for an annual subscription very quickly indeed!)

[TopBunk]

Can someone explain what, and who, are Lidos and EAGs?


Ray'nboe;)

Lidos explained elsewhere, EAGS bought out Racal bought out Aerad - ie new name, what you knew and I still use:D

[HS125]

I used to prefer the AERADS but they became impractical some Airfields weren't included in the coverage, I also used to find that the updates were poor quality and I used to frequently encounter the holes punched at some ridiculous angle across the plate.
I also find it annoying when they choose to :mad: about with a perfectly good chart format with no consultation. Always use Jepps now.

[captjns]

There have been several pretty thorough CFIT studies, and these studies certainly did show the benefits of using coloured maps.

http://www.flightsafety.org/cfit3.html


You must have entered during the middle of the movie... sort to say. Please refer to my post of yesterday. But thanks, just the same, for the re-enlightment.

[Rainboe]

Topbunk,

<Lidos explained elsewhere, EAGS bought out Racal bought out Aerad - ie new name, what you knew and I still use>
Didn't Thales buy out Racal? That's as far as I remember. Googling EAGS= European Aeronautical Group (ie French AG!), so I guess Thales was gobbled into EADS like that big monster in the Muppets that used to eat everything. Time is definitely right for all these companies to uplift their presentation- I guess the era of EFB will wipe out all that paper anyway.

[Alpine Flyer]

Have been using Jepps ever since my IFR training and still find them nice to use. Had a short affair with old Swissair (KSSU?) plates which had some nice "airline tailored" features but wouldn't match Jepp in overall useability.

I had a look at the AERAD examples after reading through this thread and found the SOF plate nicely designed. I still like the Jepp better as the new "quick briefing" format IMHO gives a better overview at a glance AND Jepp has metric conversion tables on the individual pages rather than a supplementary page.

Jepp is starting to add more colour and better terrain info for a special "airline" series of charts. Haven't seen them so far, though.

IMHO Jeppesen profits from a large user base and lots of input and experience. They make errors but usually correct them within a week or two if told.

One of the main reasons my airline wouldn't switch to another provider is the scope of Jeppesen. When using SAS plates you have quite a lead time to get plates for a new airport while Jeppesen has everything with any kind of instrument approach a download away. So you'd end up using two kinds of charts for the occasional ad-hoc charter, with the unfamiliar Jepps used for the unfamiliar destinations :uhoh:

I actually do like the thin paper as it keeps the manuals lighter. Jeppesen will replace a reasonable number of charts free of charge and if you keep your favourites in a plastic wrap you can leave the rest unprotected as long as you don't cram the binders which frays the "top" and "bottom" pages quickly.
(If this is useful depends a lot on whether you fly to the same 5-10 airports all the time or only visit a place every other month/quarter/year.)

Overall I'd prefer almost any kind of EFB solution to weekly revisions......

[dartagnan]

woul like to see different charts for same aera!

[MD12]

Lido's flight plans and Jepp charts.