OK, I apologize for generalizing slightly here. That was not my intent. I use EasyVFR whenever I fly, either on my Nexus 7 or on my Nexus 5. Errors in the airspaces has never been a real problem for me, not an issue really, because I keep myself updated in the AIP. I don’t use moving maps as AIP, moving maps are not the AIP and I have never treated them as such. I found it odd that some people do. And that was my intent to show that by a real example that everybody can check for themselves.
So using Jeppesen for IFR is not allowed? Everything including official charts are a representation of AIP data.
So they say, but they are not the AIP. I really do not know how to express it better. The regulations say that you should always keep yourself up to date. Keeping an up to date Jeppesen database certainly is one way to stay up to date about the AIP. It is the most practical way to stay up to date also, it beats copying and printing and writing numbers on a note pad. But that is what Jeppesen is, you pay someone else to organize the AIP for you, you pay someone to copy and print and write numbers and put them in an easy accessible format. That does not make them the AIP, because errors can and will occur in the translation process.
bosmantico, what can I say. I’m an engineer and 
:
you pay someone else to organize the AIP for you, you pay someone to copy and print and write numbers and put them in an easy accessible format. That does not make them the AIP, because errors can and will occur in the translation process.
But that is true of every airline in the world. I would say that in the IFR world no-one uses raw AIP data in Europe.
@LeSving, you can’t assume that the AIPs are error-free either. VAC plates in AIP Denmark have been incorrect for a long time. SkyDemon users noticed this and complained…
This may help to settle the discussion: COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 73/2010 of 26 January 2010 laying down requirements on the quality of aeronautical data and aeronautical information for the single European sky
FYI
Under ADQ jepp and all the rest are considered as the next intended user…
Vref. How do you think that adds to the debate? ie what specific provisions?
The whole discussion of Aeronautical Data provision is a complex one. End users (Pilots etc..) use products like SD, Jepp etc..however they are just AIP ICAO annex 15 data repacked by Integrators etc. The current ADQ regulation tackles the data from originator till publication in the AIP which has a legal binding. E.g. Jepp does not take liability the AIS offices (In supervision by the State Regulator) take the liability for publication.
The cost for implementing ADQ all over Europe is enormous in the long run the next intended user will benefit as there will be less manual and error prawn work to be done in order to create electronic data etc..this in relation to your comment of RAW data and some other comments by people…
The whole objective is to go to RAW data from the surveyor till the cockpit…but we are still far away from that 
however they are just AIP ICAO annex 15 data repacked by Integrators etc
Which, surely, is what they want to continue, otherwise there would be very little scope for product differentiation.
Vref has hit the nail squarely on the head. I now regularly fly and validate instrument procedures and our airborne tool of choice is Jepp Flightdeck but, from a regulatory perspective, we have to validate IAPs etc against the AIP entry.
Now one would assume that Jepp is pretty accurate and trustworthy; it isn’t. Nor is Aerad (or whatever they call themselves this week), SD and all of the others.
The problem is the core data, how it is collated, ‘harvested’ and then repackaged. Rather (un)fortunately everyone prints a waiver on their product (including NATS who collate the UK iAIP) such that there is little/no accountability other than that of the originator.
Dave, which aspect do you find typically wrong with Jepp? Enroute, terminal or approaches?
When I was validating AIP plates against raw geographic data in order to create the GPS ILS database, I encountered quite a few errors in the UK AIP, which I reported back to NATS. They were mostly Geoid errors, and mostly quite small, but a few were Lat Long errors and moderately gross.
But that’s not really the point. We are expected to treat the AIPs as gospel and the repackagers are supposed to emulate the AIP. They do a pretty good job, and I have seen no evidence that SkyDemon does a worse job than Jeppesen. Actually, it is in many instances, especially in the depiction of airspace, SD is rather better than Jepp.
