I have made the opposite experience, for example fuel provider phone numbers missing from the Jepp text section, but there in the AIP and even correct. This was Spain, btw, which is probably as southern europe as it can get. Also, section 20 (local regulations) is often completely missing in the Jepp text section. This section can, for example, contain more restrictive opening hours for GA or for Cat A aircraft, so if you miss that section, you may easily arrive at an airport closed to you.
Of course, you can always send a 20 page fax questionnaire, then chances are someone is telling you about these restrictions… unless the fax operator doesn’t give a damn.
The enroute maps created from AIP data (as available electronically from Eurocontrol EAD) are very good these days, that problem is mostly solved.
The approach charts are different for each country. I think the differences are small enough to be covered as part of your pre-flight briefing. There certainly isn’t a market to reproduce them in useable quality. Unfortunately the VFR approach charts (VACs) are not available in the free AIP in many cases. There might be demand to have an open version of them, either through a commercial or volunteer effort.
Unfortunately the VFR approach charts (VACs) are not available in the free AIP in many cases
Many cases here basically meaning Germany and Switzerland. Or are there any other countries that do not publish their VAC charts on a website?
There is also the company Navigraph that does approach plates. www.navigraph.com/
Has any one tried them?
The pricing seems ok.
Product Price incl. VAT
Charts Subscription 1 year EUR 59.90
Charts Subscription – Renewal* 1 year EUR 54.90
Or there is a possibility to buy individual charts.
Price incl. VAT
Regular Airport EUR 0.30
Large Airport EUR 0.45
Enroute Chart EUR 1.55
The coverage seems quite good. But I do not know if in reality too many airports are missing from their charts coverage for it to be really usable.
http://charts.navigraph.com/apt/map.html
Ops. My bad.
When looking closer it seems that Navigraph is only for simulaton purposes. For real flying you need to buy the Navtech charts.
I have made the opposite experience, for example fuel provider phone numbers missing from the Jepp text section, but there in the AIP and even correct. This was Spain, btw, which is probably as southern europe as it can get. Also, section 20 (local regulations) is often completely missing in the Jepp text section. This section can, for example, contain more restrictive opening hours for GA or for Cat A aircraft, so if you miss that section, you may easily arrive at an airport closed to you.
Exactly.
I have made the opposite experience, for example fuel provider phone numbers missing from the Jepp text section, but there in the AIP and even correct. This was Spain, btw, which is probably as southern europe as it can get.
Paradoxically, Spain is one place where aviation runs in a “funny way” on the ground but the AIP is of good quality.
Why Jepp don’t pick up good data from the obvious place to look at first (the AIP) I have no idea. Clearly it is not a priority for them, probably because most of their business is the sort of aviation where the pilots don’t do their preflight stuff. It is done by dedicated people in OPS back at the base and they don’t use the Text Pages and/or can’t be bothered to tell Jepp of any errors.
Years ago I used to fly with the Jepp Bottlang VFR guides (which AFAICT have been replaced by the Jeppview VFR section now, and probably eventually the Ipad stuff like JeppFD-VFR will have it all transferred) and their inaccuracies were legendary further south. But then in VFR you should expect that since a miniscule % of PPLs fly internationally so errors aren’t going to get reported.
Getting a VFR flight planning product accurate across Europe, including places where there is little GA (much of Europe 
) is a huge long term effort and only the oldest contenders get anywhere near there.
If you think I am wide of the mark, speak to one of the national CAA chart product managers and watch his face carefully while you ask him why they don’t do the terminal charts in a nice A5 format like Jepps do
Generally I dislike conspiracy theories but there might be something to this one, considering that Annex 4 recommends the charts to be in A5 format!
Much of the source (AIP) data is of poor quality and has to be interpreted/redrafted
I would say that the main reason a redraft is needed is because the AIP terminal charts are intended for reference use, not operational use.
Much of the data Jepp publish is not found in the AIPs e.g. what they call “text pages”. Admittedly a lot of the resulting data is crap (e.g. airport telephone numbers which have never been checked) but Jepp have a big head start there. And if Jepp discover a mistake in the AIP, they have a commercial incentive to not get it corrected in the AIP – same goes for anybody producing commercial charts of any type
Most of the text data stuff comes from AIPs, ICAO SARPs and other official sources, but of course not everything.
Also PPL pilots are conditioned in training to use only the “official” (national CAA) chart no matter how crap it is.
Maybe in the UK. Sweden has two VFR manuals (one published by the national aeroclub and the Jepp one). No one uses VACs from the AIP. For enroute use the national aeroclub publishes 1:250 000 charts for the whole country, which most people use. There are also 1:500 000 published by the CAA.
conspiracy theories
It would not be a “conspiracy” (which implies a criminal intent) – it would be just normal business practice.
There is a great deal in aviation which has hidden commercial constraints on it. For example most European CAAs run their VFR charts, and in the case of Germany the VFR approach charts also, as a profit making business. In the UK, the CAA licensed the VFR charts to an outfit called Memory Map. To some limited extent others have also obtained it (maybe from the CAA or maybe via MM – I don’t know) but the whole thing is very tight. They could easily deliver the data online, and it would be up to date, but they can’t as long as these commercial factors are in place.
I have told the UK CAA guy that he doesn’t need to license the topo data from Ordnance Survey (a very expensive UK former Govt department, and the usual reason given by the CAA for not publishing the charts freely) because the data is all open source / public stuff, but the CAA seemingly wants a rock solid litigation / due diligence backstop.
MM’s old QCT format was cracked a long time ago and MM then went to DRM (encrypted QCT) which has AFAIK not been cracked. People “crack” the charts (for general tablet etc use as a moving map) by capturing tiles and joining them up and then calibrating the result – either into the old QCT format or into Oziexplorer or similar. But this sort of activity makes the CAA even more nervous about going away from the paper delivery.
One could say these organisations have dug themselves a hole and now cannot get out of it, but we are where we are.
considering that Annex 4 recommends the charts to be in A5 format!
That’s an interesting find! 
I had an issue with Jepp in Amsterdam.
I turned in a stand and within minutes some airport security vehicle arrived. The bloke told me me off for doing it and said it is clearly stated in the AIP Netherlands.
He said I must have old chart material and noted my licence number and my the update date on my jepp charts.
A few months later I had an update of jepp where exactly this was highlighted.
