Josh_Tahmasebi_ForeFlight wrote:
We can absolutely report this to Jeppesen for correction. Slightly different than the NOTAMs, but if you ever see airspace like this, we can report it up and it is usually corrected quickly (usually a data cycle). The best way to report these issues is via [email protected] and we will create a case. In the meantime, I’ll create a case for the ATZs you mentioned so we will get that reported today. Thank you for letting us know!
Thanks a lot! Yes, it seems like a Jeppesen data issue as it also exists in Jeppesen IFR MFD. I will report those to [email protected] in the future.
One feature issue that I have reported to [email protected] a few times though is the fact that key airspace labels are not shown unless one zooms in to a really detailed zoom level (most blue and magenta airspace layers are missing labels):
This is despite the fact that I have got a route that goes straight through various layers of controlled airspace and have got airspace highlighting turned on. I understand that you are trying to avoid clutter on the map but many other providers seem to have found ways around that.
To also show the comparison in US airspace (I provided these examples via e-mail previously as well):
US-style altitudes:
Worldwide-style altitudes:
You will see how most of the airspace labels go missing in the second image with worldwide-style altitudes which can prove fatal (i.e. lead to a class B infringement) in the SoCal area – similarly in the London TMA.
It this could be prioritised in terms of product development, that would be great! This issue and the issue that FF doesn’t show more elevation peaks (also previously suggested and reported via e-mail) are unfortunately the reasons that I can’t fully trust the aeronautics layer and end up going back to the Jeppesen VFR or IFR layers or Jeppesen MFD IFR.
Do you have airspace „auto highlight“ on or off?
Snoopy wrote:
Do you have airspace „auto highlight“ on or off?
I have it on but I have found not to make a difference with respect to airspace labels, just highlighting airspace boundaries.
Thanks for the feedback @wbardorf.
I know what you’re referring to with labels not showing until you zoom in further. Right now there is a space coefficient that I can’t adjust (I work on the Aero map personally), but I have this on my list and I’ll talk to the team about it next week and see if there are any quick fixes that can be made. I can’t promise it will be, but we will take a look. Peaks too :)
Have a great rest of the weekend,
Josh
Josh_Tahmasebi_ForeFlight wrote:
I know what you’re referring to with labels not showing until you zoom in further. Right now there is a space coefficient that I can’t adjust (I work on the Aero map personally), but I have this on my list and I’ll talk to the team about it next week and see if there are any quick fixes that can be made. I can’t promise it will be, but we will take a look. Peaks too :)
Many thanks! I hope it is a reasonably simple and quick fix.
BTW, I really appreciated the video on ForeFlight use in Europe at
I am looking forward to the Power Users video!
Have a great weekend too!
Wolfgang
Live webinar is this Tuesday if you want to join and ask questions as well!
Is there any way to make IFR enroute waypoints („RNAV“ waypoints) visible using the foreflight aeronautical layer?
Using jeppesen ifr low level enroute layer shows them.
Example:
„BALAD“ near LOWW.
Thanks
There is by turning on airways though not ideal for all pilots and some waypoint types may not be available yet. We do have plans to split this so airways, navaids, and waypoints can be enabled/disabled separately but need to do a bit of work. We also have plans to add more waypoints to the aero layer as well based on requests we’ve received – waypoints in airways free airspaces. So more on that soon.
Josh
waypoints in airways free airspaces.
Thank you! Most of LOVV FIR is SECSI FRA (free route airspace) and it would be nice to see the waypoints for preflight route planning.
If you can show the FRA waypoint usage your much ahead of the competition. It’s complex though!
