iPad - EASA recalls Navtech Class 2 approval
Transparency International
Thread Starter
iPad - EASA recalls Navtech Class 2 approval
Usually well informed source tells me that EASA / Sweedish CAA has recalled a previously given approval to the Navtech iPad EFB Class 2 as used by Amapola Flyg, a Sweedish F-50 cargo operator.
The root cause seems to be problems with chart updates.
Any real hard facts, please?
Edited to emphazise "Navtech"
The root cause seems to be problems with chart updates.
Any real hard facts, please?
Edited to emphazise "Navtech"
Last edited by dusk2dawn; 30th Dec 2011 at 15:58.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, we just begin installation of the proprietary Navtech Class 2 EFBs on our fleet, but we don't have the iPad option (yet).
What chart supplier is being used by the iPad installation? I know currently Jepp and Lido offer an airline usable chart package for the iPad, but don't know of any airline that uses the Lido one as of now.
What chart supplier is being used by the iPad installation? I know currently Jepp and Lido offer an airline usable chart package for the iPad, but don't know of any airline that uses the Lido one as of now.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Playing Golf!
Age: 46
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Denti,
An operator in Sweeden is/was using Navtech charts on their iPad as an approved EFB.
I know Lufty is ploughing ahead with their iPad options (Lufty Systems that is) not sure if the parent airline will use it?
What do you make of Navtech Denti? I found they had very limited coverage and slow to update.... Vs Lido with weekly updates.
PT6A
An operator in Sweeden is/was using Navtech charts on their iPad as an approved EFB.
I know Lufty is ploughing ahead with their iPad options (Lufty Systems that is) not sure if the parent airline will use it?
What do you make of Navtech Denti? I found they had very limited coverage and slow to update.... Vs Lido with weekly updates.
PT6A
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, we used Navtech back when we used paper charts. Absolutely horrible. Especially when switching from jepp custom made airport booklets.
Nowadays we use the lido eroutemanual (EFB Class I) and gonna continue to use that on our class II devices.
Nowadays we use the lido eroutemanual (EFB Class I) and gonna continue to use that on our class II devices.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, disregard everything i posted before, i remembered the wrong name. We use NavAero EFBs and not Navtech ones. We used to use navtech charts though, as posted above. Not a nice experience, their layout is seriously subpar.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having spent 20 + years with Jepp/Aerad, I have to disagree with the dislike of Navtech.
The newer version that I have used these last 2 years is for me superior in every way to Jepp.
I even know where to find the chart I want, as it appears (to me) they are sequenced logically.
Now using the electronic version, and still a confirmed fan.
Perhaps the problem, is that the EFB is Navtech, but, in many aircraft, the info on FMC is Jeppy derived.
It always struck me as a little strange that this "discrepancy" is accepted by EASA.
The newer version that I have used these last 2 years is for me superior in every way to Jepp.
I even know where to find the chart I want, as it appears (to me) they are sequenced logically.
Now using the electronic version, and still a confirmed fan.
Perhaps the problem, is that the EFB is Navtech, but, in many aircraft, the info on FMC is Jeppy derived.
It always struck me as a little strange that this "discrepancy" is accepted by EASA.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
captainplaystation:
Can't see where that would make any difference provided both correctly follow state source.
Most light airplane pilots in the U.S. use FAA Aero Nav Services approach charts, but their FMS nav database is Jepp derived.
Could you provide a sample of a Navtech approach chart?
Perhaps the problem, is that the EFB is Navtech, but, in many aircraft, the info on FMC is Jeppy derived.
Most light airplane pilots in the U.S. use FAA Aero Nav Services approach charts, but their FMS nav database is Jepp derived.
Could you provide a sample of a Navtech approach chart?
Last edited by aterpster; 14th May 2012 at 12:45.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Playing Golf!
Age: 46
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope that is not the problem many airlines use charts and FMS from two different vendors.
For example easyJet uses a LIDO FM database and flight planning but Jeppesen Charts.
For example easyJet uses a LIDO FM database and flight planning but Jeppesen Charts.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"My" outfit uses LIDO charts and FMC data, but Jeppesen obstacle data on the Boeing fleet. The airbus fleet uses LiDO obstacle data... Many different ways to skin a cat and as long as the authority approves that everything is fine.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Playing Golf!
Age: 46
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for curiosity... Any idea why the change in vendor for the obstacle data between the two fleets Denti?
Are they just supplying the airport data or also EOSIDS and doing the whole LPC updating process?
Are they just supplying the airport data or also EOSIDS and doing the whole LPC updating process?
