Jeppesen vs. CASA documents
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: OZ
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeppesen vs. CASA documents
For those of you who have used both manuals, what are the advantages and disadvantages for either manuals?
I have not used CASA DAPs' and am thinking of changing over as they are cheaper and the paper is far stonger and tougher than Jepps! Also, Jepps customers out bush occasionally receive amendments several weeks late!
What is your opinion?
U2
I have not used CASA DAPs' and am thinking of changing over as they are cheaper and the paper is far stonger and tougher than Jepps! Also, Jepps customers out bush occasionally receive amendments several weeks late!
What is your opinion?
U2
Bottums Up
U2
I changed from AsA AIP to Jepps about a year or so prior to my employer deciding that all Tech Crew would use Jepps for standardisation.
My reasoning was that I was sick and tired of wading through an Aussie ammendment and then having several pages of manuscript ammendment Notams the next day when they found the typos etc.
I was also unimpressed with the late delivery of operational documents when there were really significant airspace changes, such as in Dec 1991.
I was not satisfied with the level of dis-service I received and thus chose to go Jepps, as to the best of my knowledge, they were/are the only alternative.
Jepps make their fair share of errors. However, a quick phone call or e-mail and they will correct it and the ammendment will be published ASAP, rather than quarterly with AsA.
I can't comment on the cost anymore, other than to say that I've just renewed my 'Australia' (not Australasia) Jepps for AUD$247.xx.
I changed from AsA AIP to Jepps about a year or so prior to my employer deciding that all Tech Crew would use Jepps for standardisation.
My reasoning was that I was sick and tired of wading through an Aussie ammendment and then having several pages of manuscript ammendment Notams the next day when they found the typos etc.
I was also unimpressed with the late delivery of operational documents when there were really significant airspace changes, such as in Dec 1991.
I was not satisfied with the level of dis-service I received and thus chose to go Jepps, as to the best of my knowledge, they were/are the only alternative.
Jepps make their fair share of errors. However, a quick phone call or e-mail and they will correct it and the ammendment will be published ASAP, rather than quarterly with AsA.
I can't comment on the cost anymore, other than to say that I've just renewed my 'Australia' (not Australasia) Jepps for AUD$247.xx.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used Jepp charts from the time I started my IFR training. My primary reason is because they cover the world and are used by most of the operators around my local airfield. I figured that ctarting with them would save me money instead of changing later on. They were also recommended by the training company (I'm sure the fact that they were the local distributors as well had nothing to do with it!! 
)
I have since looked at the two and found that the main difference is the approach brief on the Jepp charts is far easier to use and it all runs in an easy to use/practical order. Jepp's customer service runs rings around airservices. I've had a couple of amendments arrived damaged by weather or the post office. Jepp have had a replacement to me before the due date every time!
)I have since looked at the two and found that the main difference is the approach brief on the Jepp charts is far easier to use and it all runs in an easy to use/practical order. Jepp's customer service runs rings around airservices. I've had a couple of amendments arrived damaged by weather or the post office. Jepp have had a replacement to me before the due date every time!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: In the J curve
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jepps 1 AIP 0
I have to agree with Clar'ie,
Jepps have all the info in two books (Aust. package) and the amendment service shi!s all over the AIP.
Yep the amendments are sometimes late, as per the Jepp package dates, which are twice monthly (14 days), but they are always well in advance of the AIRAC amendment dates for AIP. So you are not flying with out of date charts, just the package amendments issued by the Jepp company.
Cost is very compatable with AIP docs, Jepp also produces a trip plate folder which is smaller than the normal doc. folder but looks much better than the AIP one. The paper is thinner and I find my constant use maps take a beating, especialy the terminal charts. Jepp have replaced these upon request in the past. I also spent some extra dosh and purchased the plastic covers for the constantly used Plates, this realy protects them and you can even draw on the plastic, easy to replace at amendement time.
The hardest thing I found about changing to jepps was the time to find things and get used to the format. It is only a cultural thing which can be overcome in a short time and with effort.
Jepp documents seem to be more user friendly and profesional in apperance. The AIP and the service by AsA/CASA documents seems amaturish by comparison.
All the best which ever way you decide to go, but be warned don't try to mix them for operational use.
Jepps 2 - AIP 0
Jepps have all the info in two books (Aust. package) and the amendment service shi!s all over the AIP.
Yep the amendments are sometimes late, as per the Jepp package dates, which are twice monthly (14 days), but they are always well in advance of the AIRAC amendment dates for AIP. So you are not flying with out of date charts, just the package amendments issued by the Jepp company.
Cost is very compatable with AIP docs, Jepp also produces a trip plate folder which is smaller than the normal doc. folder but looks much better than the AIP one. The paper is thinner and I find my constant use maps take a beating, especialy the terminal charts. Jepp have replaced these upon request in the past. I also spent some extra dosh and purchased the plastic covers for the constantly used Plates, this realy protects them and you can even draw on the plastic, easy to replace at amendement time.
The hardest thing I found about changing to jepps was the time to find things and get used to the format. It is only a cultural thing which can be overcome in a short time and with effort.
Jepp documents seem to be more user friendly and profesional in apperance. The AIP and the service by AsA/CASA documents seems amaturish by comparison.
All the best which ever way you decide to go, but be warned don't try to mix them for operational use.
Jepps 2 - AIP 0
Last edited by AMRAAM; 7th Oct 2002 at 08:45.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering that most companies that require two drivers in the pointy end use Jepps - would it not be a bit of an advantage to turn up to an interview or check ride with a couple of Jepps under your arm?.
In the interview room...
Captain Speaking: So Mr Bloggs, thanks for coming in for the interview today. I trust you had a good flight especially since you paid full fare as we only gave you 6 days notice of your interview, despite sitting on your application for 3 months and...oh, hang on a minute, what is that under your arm?
Mr Bloggs (Definately not a Captain huh): Sir, they are my Jeppesen plates, I brought them along to show you how commited and professional I am, plus like the feel of the mock leather against my skin.
Captain Speaking: Raises eyebrows, sighs, looks at rest of panel. Oh I see. Very good.
Captain Speaking: So Mr Bloggs, thanks for coming in for the interview today. I trust you had a good flight especially since you paid full fare as we only gave you 6 days notice of your interview, despite sitting on your application for 3 months and...oh, hang on a minute, what is that under your arm?
Mr Bloggs (Definately not a Captain huh): Sir, they are my Jeppesen plates, I brought them along to show you how commited and professional I am, plus like the feel of the mock leather against my skin.
Captain Speaking: Raises eyebrows, sighs, looks at rest of panel. Oh I see. Very good.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: anywhere the job offer is!
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The company I am working requires all pilots to use the JEPs, so reluctuntly I paid out the $$$ and now I have the JEPPS and find them far superior.
The DAPS on a GPS approach give descent steps from the missed approach point, not from the the relevant waypoint activated on the gps unit, therefore requiring the pilot to calculate descent points wrt his current position, I see this as a potential accident waiting to happen. I believe the information for the pilot should be easily readable, especially when conducting an instrument approach.
Stay with the JEPPS
The DAPS on a GPS approach give descent steps from the missed approach point, not from the the relevant waypoint activated on the gps unit, therefore requiring the pilot to calculate descent points wrt his current position, I see this as a potential accident waiting to happen. I believe the information for the pilot should be easily readable, especially when conducting an instrument approach.
Stay with the JEPPS
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DAPS on a GPS approach give descent steps from the missed approach point, not from the the relevant waypoint activated on the gps unit, therefore requiring the pilot to calculate descent points wrt his current position
I haven't seen any Jepp charts recently but, as far as I recall, they reproduce the chart exactly as they get it from AsA. I'm not trying to say that AsA's charts are better, nor am I trying to defend them, but I've looked at this distance problem for a real long time and not found any better way. Who knows, maybe Jeppesen knows something about it that I don't - that's always a possibility I suppose.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: HKG
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a piddling difference, I know, but I like having the navaid ident & morse on the approach plate. The Jepps do this and from memory the ASA docs don't.
Handy for the lazy sods like me that never learned morse!
I also prefer the Jepp technique of representing DME/GPS arrivals, ie. "After __, Descend to__" and a few other variations here. I believe (though I could be corrected) that the Partenavia prang at Wagga Wagga some years ago may have been caused by incorrect DME step interpretation.
I guess the biggest advantage of using Jepps is that when flying in distant lands, the charts are all of the same style. Big plus.
Might have to get myself another Jepp binder, though. With all the new 18-1's appearing, binder 2 is bursting at the seams!
Handy for the lazy sods like me that never learned morse!
I also prefer the Jepp technique of representing DME/GPS arrivals, ie. "After __, Descend to__" and a few other variations here. I believe (though I could be corrected) that the Partenavia prang at Wagga Wagga some years ago may have been caused by incorrect DME step interpretation.
I guess the biggest advantage of using Jepps is that when flying in distant lands, the charts are all of the same style. Big plus.
Might have to get myself another Jepp binder, though. With all the new 18-1's appearing, binder 2 is bursting at the seams!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeppesen v. AsA Doc's
No-one has mentioned the BIGGEST difference between AirServices and Jeppesen.
AirServices have a safety-of-flight emphasis and publish information that they themselves design after careful research and validation of data.
Jeppesen have a commercial interest and re-publish information that they are given. They do not design their own procedures and do not guarantee the products are safe to use. They take what they're given - be it from a 3rd world country or not - reformat it in their style and then publish it.
Exhibit 1 your Honour. Remember the USAF T43A (B737-200) that hit a hill in Dubrovnik, Croatia on 03 April 1996 (with US Commerce Secretary Ron Brown on-board) in which all 35 people were killed? Remember that one? The crew hit a hill after flying a twin NDB approach with only one ADF on-board. It's an interesting investigation report to read. One of the contributory causes for the accident was an improperly designed instrument approach procedure. The Jeppesen Approach plate they were using was wrong because the information that Jeppesen had been given by the relevant State authority was wrong but they didn't (and don't) check it. If I remember correctly, the published MDA was 2150FT whilst the highest terrain was around 2300FT. The NTSB participated in the investigation and claimed that if the approach had been designed with standard vertical obstacle clearance limits, the aircraft would not have hit the ground.
I've used Jeppesen stuff but with the knowledge that they don't have the same safety-of-flight emphasis that the State Authority does. That's OK if you're flying in to a major airport which services RPT or in a nation that has a good Aeronautical Information Service (eg Australia) because the data has been checked by the operators. Not so good if you get off the beaten track or go to a country that just doesn't place the same emphasis on Aeronautical Information that Australia does (eg Indonesia, India....).
All I'm saying is USER BEWARE.
AirServices have a safety-of-flight emphasis and publish information that they themselves design after careful research and validation of data.
Jeppesen have a commercial interest and re-publish information that they are given. They do not design their own procedures and do not guarantee the products are safe to use. They take what they're given - be it from a 3rd world country or not - reformat it in their style and then publish it.
Exhibit 1 your Honour. Remember the USAF T43A (B737-200) that hit a hill in Dubrovnik, Croatia on 03 April 1996 (with US Commerce Secretary Ron Brown on-board) in which all 35 people were killed? Remember that one? The crew hit a hill after flying a twin NDB approach with only one ADF on-board. It's an interesting investigation report to read. One of the contributory causes for the accident was an improperly designed instrument approach procedure. The Jeppesen Approach plate they were using was wrong because the information that Jeppesen had been given by the relevant State authority was wrong but they didn't (and don't) check it. If I remember correctly, the published MDA was 2150FT whilst the highest terrain was around 2300FT. The NTSB participated in the investigation and claimed that if the approach had been designed with standard vertical obstacle clearance limits, the aircraft would not have hit the ground.
I've used Jeppesen stuff but with the knowledge that they don't have the same safety-of-flight emphasis that the State Authority does. That's OK if you're flying in to a major airport which services RPT or in a nation that has a good Aeronautical Information Service (eg Australia) because the data has been checked by the operators. Not so good if you get off the beaten track or go to a country that just doesn't place the same emphasis on Aeronautical Information that Australia does (eg Indonesia, India....).
All I'm saying is USER BEWARE.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've used Jeppesen stuff but with the knowledge that they don't have the same safety-of-flight emphasis that the State Authority does. That's OK if you're flying in to a major airport which services RPT or in a nation that has a good Aeronautical Information Service (eg Australia) because the data has been checked by the operators. Not so good if you get off the beaten track or go to a country that just doesn't place the same emphasis on Aeronautical Information that Australia does (eg Indonesia, India....).
Your caution may be valid, but is irelevant to the debate on State vv Jepps
Snooze
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Ozex, it just so happens that I have them charts and plates at hand and will be useing em on me big trip to Manilla very shortly. I bought the trip pack for Pacific basin and you would not believe the bleeding pile of charts and plates involved........needless to say I wont be requiring most of them, so you can have em. 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snooze , I don't understand why you think my comments are not relevant to the debate over which product is better to use. The comments from the others are that the format, content and service of Jeppesen were far better than buying from AsA. To quote AMRAAM "Jepp documents seem to be more user friendly and profesional in apperance. The AIP and the service by AsA/CASA documents seems amaturish by comparison. (sic)" and mikef "I have since looked at the two and found that the main difference is the approach brief on the Jepp charts is far easier to use and it all runs in an easy to use/practical order. Jepp's customer service runs rings around airservices."
The intention of my post was to point out to people that the difference between Jeppesen and AsA (and other State Authorities) products is not only the format and level of service but a rather more substantial issue - that of flight safety. It's for that reason that I believe it's a key consideration when deciding whether to use Jepp products or not. I have heard the standard discussions over which product to use but no-one ever mentions the escape clause that Jeppesen cunningly includes in its products.
OzExpat As a procedure designer can you add any comments to the issue of Jeppesen products not being validated?
The intention of my post was to point out to people that the difference between Jeppesen and AsA (and other State Authorities) products is not only the format and level of service but a rather more substantial issue - that of flight safety. It's for that reason that I believe it's a key consideration when deciding whether to use Jepp products or not. I have heard the standard discussions over which product to use but no-one ever mentions the escape clause that Jeppesen cunningly includes in its products.
OzExpat As a procedure designer can you add any comments to the issue of Jeppesen products not being validated?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trash 'n' Navs
No arguments there.
The relevant state authority, in our case Airservices, has designed and tested the procedure. The safety issue rests firmly there.
Jeppesen, and Airservices Publications, are simply a distribution channel for the procedure. Both organisations do an excellent job of this.
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.
Indeed, if as has been suggested,
and,
then it could even be said that safety has been enhanced.
Snooze
Jeppesen have a commercial interest and re-publish information that they are given. They do not design their own procedures and do not guarantee the products are safe to use. They take what they're given - be it from a 3rd world country or not - reformat it in their style and then publish it.
The relevant state authority, in our case Airservices, has designed and tested the procedure. The safety issue rests firmly there.
Jeppesen, and Airservices Publications, are simply a distribution channel for the procedure. Both organisations do an excellent job of this.
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.
Indeed, if as has been suggested,
Jepp documents seem to be more user friendly
the approach brief on the Jepp charts is far easier to use and it all runs in an easy to use/practical order
Snooze
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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 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
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiz ... thanks mate, but I wooden dream of taking a chart that you might end up needing! Never know how far off track ya might find yerself! I'll throw a couple of them thru me scanner tho! 
Trash 'n' Navs ... I can't speak for AsA because I honestly don't know how they deal with Jeppesen. All I can tell you is from my own experience is that they liaise with me on a fairly regular basis. I'm not aware of any residual errors in their charts, because I don't check them. But they DO check details in our charts with me, whenever they feel that something is amiss.
Most of the time, it turns out to be an AIS production error that didn't get picked up before publication. I give them the correct information by e-mail and follow it up with a Notam, but the system here isn't geared to rapid issue of corrected charts. Thus I think it's fair to say that Jepps have the up-to-date info on their chart before we have it on ours.
As far as I'm aware, Jepps do not independently validate any chart from any aviation authority. They do, however, offer a procedure design service to anyone who wants it. You'd have to check with them for details of that service - unless of course we have someone from Jepps lurking here who can provide details.
From my dealings with them, they are very professional and very easy to get along with. If it was up to me, I'd be using them as our AIS but, sadly, it isn't up to me.
I'll throw a couple of them thru me scanner tho! Trash 'n' Navs ... I can't speak for AsA because I honestly don't know how they deal with Jeppesen. All I can tell you is from my own experience is that they liaise with me on a fairly regular basis. I'm not aware of any residual errors in their charts, because I don't check them. But they DO check details in our charts with me, whenever they feel that something is amiss.
Most of the time, it turns out to be an AIS production error that didn't get picked up before publication. I give them the correct information by e-mail and follow it up with a Notam, but the system here isn't geared to rapid issue of corrected charts. Thus I think it's fair to say that Jepps have the up-to-date info on their chart before we have it on ours.
As far as I'm aware, Jepps do not independently validate any chart from any aviation authority. They do, however, offer a procedure design service to anyone who wants it. You'd have to check with them for details of that service - unless of course we have someone from Jepps lurking here who can provide details.
From my dealings with them, they are very professional and very easy to get along with. If it was up to me, I'd be using them as our AIS but, sadly, it isn't up to me.