what next, the argument isn’t about which format is easiest to use, it is about the fact that the data is inconsistent.
what next, the argument isn’t about which format is easiest to use, it is about the fact that the data is inconsistent.
The same kind of inconsistency has existed when the charts were paper only. And with nothing but AIP charts you wouldn’t even find out about errors because you could not compare them against anything.
…indeed. I found loads of errors in Aerad/AIDU charts, back in the day. Typically gross errors such as a completely wrong track on an airway (out by tens of degrees, not by a measurement error.)
It seems that in Germany for example, or in Czech Republic, only the main airfields are listed under the EAD, whereas in France, all public airfields have their data listed.
In Czech Republic, they were all listed in the AIP until recently; a few months ago, VFR airfields were segregated into a separate VFR manual, which is available for free download from lis.rlp.cz/vfrmanual. In fact, the new Czech VACs are quite good, potentially better than Jeppesen’s.
In the accident reports I’ve read where incorrect aeronautical information was a factor (very few), the pilot’s use of derived sources (like Jeppesen) as such were never mentioned as factors, nor were they otherwise critizised. (As long as the information was current!)
I know of at least one instance, a CFIT crash of an Ilyushin IL-76TD (RDPL-34141) at WPEC (Baucau, Timor-Leste) in 2003. The report mentions the use of Jeppesen charts with an incorrect runway location.
In fact, the new Czech VACs are quite good,
Seconded, but alas
potentially better than Jeppesen’s.
I can’t compare.
My 2 Cents:
I use only iPads, iPad mini and iPhones. And i fly with SkyDemon (VFR) and JeppView Charts (IFR). I also have a nav chart on the MFD and all approach charts on the MFD. The examiners i asked said that they don’t care. All they want is a V A L I D map.
I have never found a really bad mistake in SkyDemon.
I have a set of vfr paper charts, somewhere in my backpack, and the ifr enroute charts for Europe.
I also never have a shutdown. Probably because of the air condition in my plane :-)
My backup is not paper but an Android tablet and an Android Phablet. But I have never had to use them.
I have been using Pocket FMS / Easy VFR for a long time, now recently on Samsung Galaxy products, on a S2, a 7 inch Tab and a10 inch tab, which also houses Jeppesens VFR manual for all of Europe. I will need to upgrade to IFR soon and evaluate which product to use there.
Technically speaking, I have not seen a single shut down of any samsung device since I use them. I’ve had them up at FL170.
I had one event where my Garmin 496 lost GPS reception in the cockpit while the Samsung Tab had perfect indication.
I have found the Ipad shuts down very regularly at any significant altitude and it doesn’t need sunshine to do it.
As the Americans say, YMMV
As a contradictory data point: I have flown well over 1000 hours with an iPad (originally an iPad 1 and latterly an iPad 4) at levels between 2000 ft and (most often) FL 160 or 170. I habitually have it on charge as I use it and have never once had it shut down on me. If it starts to feel hot, I just hold it in front of the air vent for a few seconds.
I know of at least one instance, a CFIT crash of an Ilyushin IL-76TD (RDPL-34141) at WPEC (Baucau, Timor-Leste) in 2003. The report mentions the use of Jeppesen charts with an incorrect runway location.
Interesting report, thanks! An astounding display of lack of CRM and airmanship by the crew.
The report didn’t actually criticize the pilots for using Jepp charts generally — in this case there was a NOTAM issued that specific official charts should be used. Also, Jeppesen’s charting of the procedure was correct, so if the crew had followed it instead of improvising their own, they would have been fine even though the runway location was off on the chart.
The report doesn’t even mention the chart discrepancy among the “Significant factors”.
