Ah Ok! I remember the event, but not the faces unfortunately! If we meet again, you'll have to say hi ;)
How can you 'absolutely love SD' but 'don't have confidence' in it?
It's like with women 
Hi PA. I hadn't realised that we'd actuallly met! Small world ;) Where did we meet?
It was at Panshanger, about 5 years ago on one of those nav challenge days. I recall my group and one other were neck and neck point wise, and there was some tie-break question about the number of NM from Panshanger to somewhere in Spain, and the other group went straight for the room with a very helpful map indicating such distances, allowing them to be extremely precise, while my group came up with a pretty poor guess and lost. Not that I am still bitter about that, lol. But they won the better prize (cant remember what it was), but my group did get a years license to use Pocket FMS, which was nice, but pre iPhone/ iPad type tablet days, and I never really used it much, which was a shame now I look back.
In one sense I wish I had tried Pocket FMS before buying SD. I actually 'won' a license and met dublinpilot 5 years ago or so, but mobile devices werent so hot, and it didnt really interest me much at the time.
Hi PA. I hadn't realised that we'd actuallly met! Small world ;) Where did we meet?
Yet, somehow, Jepp managed to do it right. Can anyone dig out the Italian AIP where this airspace information is published?
I challenge that. The link refers to class A airspace around Elba and from a quick glance and comparison between SD and JeppFD on my Ipad both look the same TODAY - I don't know how they compared in June when this was originally posted on the SD forum.
All I say is "That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah"
I agree with 172driver; I would absolutely no question NOT publish a chart at all which has some essential info missing, just because it needs more work to capture the data.
I think is where the problem comes from. Some people dont like the national charts, or they dont like how some software that uses them functions (AirNavPro has been mentioned). Enter SD (like others) who present a new uncluttered map, where you can show/hide various elements as you see fit. But then if you use that alone, you by your own customisation of the app, open yourself up to issues and possible prosecution if you do something stupid in the air. Thats why SD has the disclaimer of which part reads "This software is an aid to VFR flight planning and navigation only. It does not replace...."
If you use it in that spirit its fine. If you totally rely upon it you may have an issue.
And yes if PocketFMS can get it right, so should SD. We shouldnt be accepting anything less really. In one sense I wish I had tried Pocket FMS before buying SD. I actually 'won' a license and met dublinpilot 5 years ago or so, but mobile devices werent so hot, and it didnt really interest me much at the time. Things have moved on a lot. I'd use Jepp Mobile FliteDeck VFR for its consistency and accuracy, but at the moment it is a very inferior product compared to SD and PocketFMS and I wouldnt spend money on it.
How can you 'absolutely love SD' but 'don't have confidence' in it?
What I mean is that I love it is as product and happily use it as I describe and have confidence in the product, but, for the reasons others have mentioned, I cant be 100% confident the data is totally accurate, hence I cross-reference to the national charts as well. My confidence is something like 95% as in the UK flying I mostly do, I have seen no issues, but if I busted a restericted area or something just because I used an app, I would be annoyed with myself if I could have avoided it and provided myself a defense by also using the authorised chart.
Yes. In Italy, ultralight pilots used to be restricted to max 1000 feet AGL in the past. Therefore, the only thing they needed to know was where there were any CTRs/TMAs/restricted areas that reached all the way to the ground and simply avoid these. Done. Avioportolano publishes a very neat chart that only depicts airspace below 1000 feet and it is very "clean" and readable, obviously.
However, with the introduction of the "advanced ultralight" rules in 2010, more and more ultralighters are now no longer restricted to max 1000 feet and therefore they now ought to have an understanding of the airspace structure in all three dimensions. No more way to get this using a paper chart now.
...And Skydemon does not depict the airspace correctly. So, the only real alternative currently is PFMS (plus maybe a couple of other, minor players).
But I guess that Jeppesen will include Italy in their MFDVFR product soon, very probably before the start of the next flying season. No help for people wishing to continue to use paper, though.
ultralight/micropilot/homebuilt is a pretty big market i think ... And it's not that you "can manage" in various ways, it's that pilots WANT these gadgets and apps, regardless if they really need them.
Jepp are the only ones to have done it correctly. PocketFMS/EasyVFR also have the Italian TMAs & VFR sectors shown correctly.
Of course. I was just about to point this out. Makes the stance of SD stand out even more.
the bits I have heard over the years suggest that most of it (in terms of numbers of pilots and aircraft) is low level microlight/homebuilt activity. If you fly mostly locally, you can manage in various ways.
This is basically true. There is not that much serious VFR touring in classic SEP aircraft in Italy (by italian pilots). But every year, there are thousands of people flying to Italy from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France and UK. The vast majority of these people used to use the Jeppesen VFR/GPS charts. They are screwed now. The italian ICAO chart really is horrible...
