Which chart are you using?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by Denti; 6th Nov 2006 at 20:23.
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.
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.
. 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.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.)
* 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.)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Republishers don't always proofread!
Chart producers ... are republishers ... If there are mistakes in the source data, it is likely this will be reproduced unless queried.
(But they accepted my employer's money for an annual subscription very quickly indeed!)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2006
Location: On the right of the clowns and to the left of the jokers
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
about with a perfectly good chart format with no consultation. Always use Jepps now.
I also find it annoying when they choose to
about with a perfectly good chart format with no consultation. Always use Jepps now.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
<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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 449
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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......
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
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......
