AERAD Charts - What is happening
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: middx
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AERAD Charts - What is happening
Hi All
Forgive my ignorance but i've just reported for work today, done my usual routine gone to the a/c opened the booklets and sat there stunned.
What has happened to the charts.
When did all this change.
Where has aerad gone.
Where have all the notes gone at the bottom of the charts.
What are these busts heights on the SIDs now? min,max or at?
Half the print is unreadable even in my state of life.
Help, can anyone help an old codger and point them in the right direction as to where the new legend is. I couldn't find one on board.
It looks like a Jeppesen chart, gord help us.
I've also noticed CAT A minima missing. Not good for the boys in the thick of it.
Forgive my ignorance but i've just reported for work today, done my usual routine gone to the a/c opened the booklets and sat there stunned.
What has happened to the charts.
When did all this change.
Where has aerad gone.
Where have all the notes gone at the bottom of the charts.
What are these busts heights on the SIDs now? min,max or at?
Half the print is unreadable even in my state of life.
Help, can anyone help an old codger and point them in the right direction as to where the new legend is. I couldn't find one on board.
It looks like a Jeppesen chart, gord help us.
I've also noticed CAT A minima missing. Not good for the boys in the thick of it.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New format, minima shown on approach page is Euro ops and at the back you will still find JAR-OPS minima (old green pages) not sure about CAT A?
Lots of info missing and lots of errors too, the track on SID's often refer to a VOR which is named, but no frequency for the VOR
With time and updates i guess we will get used them
Lots of info missing and lots of errors too, the track on SID's often refer to a VOR which is named, but no frequency for the VOR
With time and updates i guess we will get used them
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: U.K.
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your Company should have warned you about this. A booklet explaining changes is linked below:
http://www.euronautical.com/files/te...NewBooklet.pdf
http://www.euronautical.com/files/te...NewBooklet.pdf
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi OFP
These are (if they are from Navtech), the new charts from European Aeronautical Group. To quote their intro splurge in the info booklet my company gave out to us about a month ago;
"The focus of our development has been to create a modern chart specification, taking into consideration recent research and our vast experience as a chart maker.
We believe we have taken a step into the future, bringing you the most modern and easy to use aeronautical chart product in the market.
Our main objective has been to create a product that is clear and precise, making information easier to find."
Not checked it out so don't know if it will be of any use but their website is [email protected].
The guy to ask Topslide may very well be Patrik Stromqvist, Director, Product Management Charting
These are (if they are from Navtech), the new charts from European Aeronautical Group. To quote their intro splurge in the info booklet my company gave out to us about a month ago;
"The focus of our development has been to create a modern chart specification, taking into consideration recent research and our vast experience as a chart maker.
We believe we have taken a step into the future, bringing you the most modern and easy to use aeronautical chart product in the market.
Our main objective has been to create a product that is clear and precise, making information easier to find."
Not checked it out so don't know if it will be of any use but their website is [email protected].
The guy to ask Topslide may very well be Patrik Stromqvist, Director, Product Management Charting
Last edited by K.Whyjelly; 6th Aug 2008 at 09:48. Reason: hopefully answering Topslides Q
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the EAG website there is a very nice PPS presentation (http://www.euronautical.com/files/te...O5uQAf/CBT.zip), the charts looks cleaner now and at least i can read instantly what chart i am looking for instead of reading vertically from up to down in small letters. Also the takeoff minimas looks jeppesen style now 
Have fun
Have fun
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EuroTo$$ers
Absolute disaster. Can't even recognise my home base anymore.
VORs NDBs are the same symbol, messy layout, zilcho consideration for the operating crew. Meddling for the sake of bureaucracy.
I'd hate to have to use it in a hurry!
What "research" - no one's asked ME!!!
moist
VORs NDBs are the same symbol, messy layout, zilcho consideration for the operating crew. Meddling for the sake of bureaucracy.
I'd hate to have to use it in a hurry!
What "research" - no one's asked ME!!!
moist
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They've also named the airfields after their name in the local lingo rather than English, so you'd better be able to remember you're diverting to Wien and not Vienna when the cockpit fills up with smoke.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh! the famous words
and..
usually accompany a premium rate phone number for customer support.
taking into consideration recent research
We believe we have taken a step into the future
I must admit that I find them easier to read.
They are less haphazard than the old one, with the SSA in one place rather than in the corners or in a rose.
The ILS freq are also easier to find.
Although I have only recently moved from the Jepps.
In my coy nobody really liked the aerads.
Have to agree about the Wein issue, would it be too difficult to have both names?
Ready to have my head shot off...
They are less haphazard than the old one, with the SSA in one place rather than in the corners or in a rose.
The ILS freq are also easier to find.
Although I have only recently moved from the Jepps.
In my coy nobody really liked the aerads.
Have to agree about the Wein issue, would it be too difficult to have both names?
Ready to have my head shot off...
Last edited by Spunky Monkey; 6th Aug 2008 at 11:34. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spunky,
You can't see the ILS frequency and ident unless you're very young!
We, over 50s need nice big numbering, lettering. The previous chart was just fine.
The idiot that thought these up, has never been in a cockpit that's for sure!
moist
You can't see the ILS frequency and ident unless you're very young!
We, over 50s need nice big numbering, lettering. The previous chart was just fine.
The idiot that thought these up, has never been in a cockpit that's for sure!
moist
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just had a look at the powerpoint presentation, not seen a real chart yet, but there are some improvements over current Aerad charts.
IMHO good things:
Approach lights box on approach plate
Engine failure SIDs on SID plate - about time!
ILS frequency in top box <and> by navaid on approach chart
Frequencies on SID/STAR charts (UK Aerad already do this, but a lot of Europe ones do not)
DME scale on bottom of Approach chart
Bad things:
Small text, hard to see at night or for oldies
DME scale on approach chart does not state which DME it uses, for airfields with 2 DME's this is potentially confusing
MSA's on plan - what indicates they are MSA's and not highest ground level? (used to say M on page number, ie M5Mmeans MSA plate)
Altitudes are less clear than before, the line above/below is excellent so why did they remove it?
Names of places are in local language - disaster! I have no idea what a load of places are called in their own language - how do I find them?
I'm sure I'll come across more when I actually use them.
IMHO good things:
Approach lights box on approach plate
Engine failure SIDs on SID plate - about time!
ILS frequency in top box <and> by navaid on approach chart
Frequencies on SID/STAR charts (UK Aerad already do this, but a lot of Europe ones do not)
DME scale on bottom of Approach chart
Bad things:
Small text, hard to see at night or for oldies
DME scale on approach chart does not state which DME it uses, for airfields with 2 DME's this is potentially confusing
MSA's on plan - what indicates they are MSA's and not highest ground level? (used to say M on page number, ie M5Mmeans MSA plate)
Altitudes are less clear than before, the line above/below is excellent so why did they remove it?
Names of places are in local language - disaster! I have no idea what a load of places are called in their own language - how do I find them?
I'm sure I'll come across more when I actually use them.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cheltenham
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Aerads
The new charts are a brave attempt to combine the best of the UK Aerad format and the best of the EAG Sweden format. All the staff in Stockholm think they are more like Aerad and vice versa. The new format is also compatible with the navigation database and will make it possible to meet the quality and traceability standards expected from Eurocontrol.
To address some of the main criticisms above:
Aerodrome Names – They now agree with the names in the national AIPs. Aerad UK was the only supplier that attempted to anglicize the names. This always caused overseas customers considerable difficulty. Try telling an Italian airline that its capital city is Rome. Lets call it globalisation.
Altitude - The altitude information is significantly better. The text size is greater than either previous format and they actually state the altitude limitation. The previous bars above and /or below the altitude value did not give sufficient flexibility in presentation. The inverse presentation of the altitude bust height is retained. Call it safety (and employment continuity come to that).
Minimum Safe Altitude – MSA can be recognized because it is always green. It is retained for those airlines which prefer this format. Terrain contours with spot heights is an option and is much easier to produce by the way because it is supplied in the AIP. Call it flexibility.
User Feedback – If Navtech had asked 10,000 pilots for their opinions on what to put on the charts they would have got 20,000 answers. Call it democracy.
They read this column so provide feedback to Patrick. Constructive comments to [email protected]
Happy AIRAC
To address some of the main criticisms above:
Aerodrome Names – They now agree with the names in the national AIPs. Aerad UK was the only supplier that attempted to anglicize the names. This always caused overseas customers considerable difficulty. Try telling an Italian airline that its capital city is Rome. Lets call it globalisation.
Altitude - The altitude information is significantly better. The text size is greater than either previous format and they actually state the altitude limitation. The previous bars above and /or below the altitude value did not give sufficient flexibility in presentation. The inverse presentation of the altitude bust height is retained. Call it safety (and employment continuity come to that).
Minimum Safe Altitude – MSA can be recognized because it is always green. It is retained for those airlines which prefer this format. Terrain contours with spot heights is an option and is much easier to produce by the way because it is supplied in the AIP. Call it flexibility.
User Feedback – If Navtech had asked 10,000 pilots for their opinions on what to put on the charts they would have got 20,000 answers. Call it democracy.
They read this column so provide feedback to Patrick. Constructive comments to [email protected]
Happy AIRAC
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere In The South China Sea
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I used them for the first time today and they are pretty abysmal, took me 5 minutes to locate the ILS morse ident, took another 5 minutes to find the airfield elevation, the minima's at the bottom are just bloody confusing, listing (for the airfields we went to today anyway) CAT III minima's first. There's too much clutter in the vertical profiles of the approach charts. The chart is rather disjointed in places and is certainly a small step backwards for now. What's with the chart numbers now? no M3M etc etc, instead we have 30-2 or similar. How much consultation was taken with the people who actually use these things?
As a side note a quick glance at the PDF file posted above shows charts that are slightly more eligible than the two I had to read today, so certainly alot of variation dependent on the airfield being visited.
On a positive note the ground pages are more concise.
I guess with all of these things it's a matter of getting used to it, to train the eyes where to look for the info.
As a side note a quick glance at the PDF file posted above shows charts that are slightly more eligible than the two I had to read today, so certainly alot of variation dependent on the airfield being visited.
On a positive note the ground pages are more concise.
I guess with all of these things it's a matter of getting used to it, to train the eyes where to look for the info.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the charts are tailored to specific airlines, why not tailor the names at the top of the charts as well? If you put the names in English, then they are all there in a standard ICAO language, if you put them in their own language, that's going away from standard by utilising many different languages. Rome is called Rome in standard ICAO English. Non English speakers have to learn English for the notes, by your argument we should put them all in the local language. Its a step backwards. Its like calling East Midlands, "Nottingham", no one can find it, which is why it changed its name back to East Midlands. (no doubt it was different before and caused confusion when it was changed originally).
No it is not, at least as far as I am concerned. Looking at the chart quickly, I cannot see it reliably enough. A line above or below indicates it very well, text beforehand can lead to misreading and takes longer to assimilate. Setting the block altitude in black being retained is a good idea. If you have "inbetween" altitudes you could add a similar system to the new charts, but to take away the hard line is a step in the wrong direction.
Green is hard to see against black in the lighting of cockpits in the dark. Also, it should tell us that in the presentation. Why can't we retain the lines on the altitudes if we prefer that presentation?
So we are just ignored instead? Who are the charts for, the maker or the user?
Altitude - The altitude information is significantly better.
Minimum Safe Altitude – MSA can be recognized because it is always green. It is retained for those airlines which prefer this format
User Feedback – If Navtech had asked 10,000 pilots for their opinions on what to put on the charts they would have got 20,000 answers. Call it democracy.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stansted
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did my first trip with these charts last week from Prestwick.
On the old charts it had a note which explained about North Atlantic departures and if you had to get the oceanic clearance before departing (depending on entry point). Now.........
Nothing. No mention of this at all. Why not? Are they being like Gordon Brown, IE we know better than you plebs so get used to it.
On the old charts it had a note which explained about North Atlantic departures and if you had to get the oceanic clearance before departing (depending on entry point). Now.........
Nothing. No mention of this at all. Why not? Are they being like Gordon Brown, IE we know better than you plebs so get used to it.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for my old brain, could someone confirm the new Aerad EUOPS format are the NAVTECH charts???
I ask as we recently changed from AERAD to NAVTECH we assumed it was because they were cheaper! Not that it was the new version of AERAD.
If they are NAVTECH much better on the ground but hate any of the airbourne plates they are so difficult to understand and full of shall we say "differing" information from the origional Aerad plates, and I am used to using both Aerad and Jepps!
I ask as we recently changed from AERAD to NAVTECH we assumed it was because they were cheaper! Not that it was the new version of AERAD.
If they are NAVTECH much better on the ground but hate any of the airbourne plates they are so difficult to understand and full of shall we say "differing" information from the origional Aerad plates, and I am used to using both Aerad and Jepps!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU-OPS Minima
Slightly off topic here but correct me if i'm wrong:
"What's even more amusing is that in our route folder, only some of the booklets are in the new format. That technically means we're still using JAR-OPS for some approach minima (as there is no alternative) and EU-OPS for others. Ridiculous."
My understanding of Eu-Ops was that operators had a 3 year period of grace during which they could remain with Jar-Ops minima before using the revised method of minima calculation contained within Eu-Ops, which in some cases gives more favourable minima. However an operator must choose one or the other and cannot cherry pick between Jar-Ops minima and Eu-Ops minima.. For this reason my airline has chosen to stay with Jar-Ops until Aerad have finished introducing the Aerochart standard and has issued guidance that the EU-Ops minima cannot be used. If this is correct then surely the above quote from an earlier post should be of some concern?
"What's even more amusing is that in our route folder, only some of the booklets are in the new format. That technically means we're still using JAR-OPS for some approach minima (as there is no alternative) and EU-OPS for others. Ridiculous."
My understanding of Eu-Ops was that operators had a 3 year period of grace during which they could remain with Jar-Ops minima before using the revised method of minima calculation contained within Eu-Ops, which in some cases gives more favourable minima. However an operator must choose one or the other and cannot cherry pick between Jar-Ops minima and Eu-Ops minima.. For this reason my airline has chosen to stay with Jar-Ops until Aerad have finished introducing the Aerochart standard and has issued guidance that the EU-Ops minima cannot be used. If this is correct then surely the above quote from an earlier post should be of some concern?
With the (fairly large) caveat that I have yet use them in a darkened cockpit I actually rather like them and would say with a little tweaking (large character font in some places for instance) that they are an improvement on the old charts but still nothing like as good as the original spec. Aerad charts which were the best and clearest I have used.
