Arne wrote:
I think the SD guy handled it very well. And I agree with him trying to adress to root-cause and not a quick-and-very-dirty band-aid à la EasyVFR.
I don’t think so at all. The route cause is not with DFS, it is with SkyDemon, namely that they decide not to process some (all?) information in AIP SUPs at all. See the merged SkyDemon thread on this very forum for some examples of this.
As a pilot you would have to be aware of information contained in the AIP, in the AIP SUP and in NOTAMs. A comprehensive VFR product should contain information from all three of these. Deciding that the AIP SUP is not machine-friendly enough to be processed is hardly a defensible position. At least they should have a clear and direct warning about this, not just their blanket “we are not responsible for the correctness of anything we display and you should double check everything”-type of disclaimer that annoyingly pops up at every program start.
BTW: if you download the German AIP plates for Berlin Schönefeld EDDB, you get a package of complete fiction. Everything given there is non existent, SIDs and STARs, useless. The secret is that there has been a longstanding AIP SUP giving different procedures and plates for EDDB while it is being rebuilt. The AIP SUP has been there for years. You have to look outside the AIP.
A pilot has to possess the knowledge that is contained within the AIP SUP. Requiring pilots to pay for it is not very smart which apparently DFS realized in the SkyDemon case.
achimha wrote:
A pilot has to possess the knowledge that is contained within the AIP SUP. Requiring pilots to pay for it is not very smart which apparently DFS realized in the SkyDemon case.
Which part of the linked thread says this? DFS still requires payment for its VFR AIP, which is completely bollocks IMO, but the question with SkyDemon is not this. What they did in this case that they persuaded the DFS to issue a NOTAM, which would not have been necessary or is even contrary to standard ICAO practice, since the mentioned restriction is longer term (therefore went into the AIP SUP instead of being NOTAM-ed, but not being permanent, not into the AIP). At least this is how I understand the thread.
What I don’t really understand is why this ED-R info has ended up only in the AIP SUP, while other ED-Rs are well mentioned in NOTAMs. And since years everyone flying through Germany for more than 50 NM has the benefit of getting permanent NOTAMS re. restrictions re. Iraq and other areas where the probability of someone flying VFR is exactly 0,01%.
The way I see it, Tim Dawsons response is rather lame… it may save him some bucks, but it’s bad in terms of marketing and it’s damaging his business. He may be right that DFS is the root cause, and the discussion might show them the light, but to be honest, I don’t give a damn; SD should integrate it and discuss with DFS at the same time. The only reason we use SD or any other navigation software is that we trust in them to show all information. If they don’t, they’re useless.
EuroFlyer wrote:
SD should integrate it and discuss with DFS at the same time. The only reason we use SD or any other navigation software is that we trust in them to show all information. If they don’t, they’re useless.
Very well said!
I have contacted SkyDemon many times because of errors or lack of data. Most of the times I gotten a reply that it is some other authority’s fault, and that it is not SkyDemon’s fault.
I’m paying SkyDemon to correct the other authority’s fault dammit! Many times, e.g. in one case where coordinates of multiple areas were present in one NOTAM, which was displayed as a signle messed up area, they refused to fix it because “one NOTAM should never contain more than one area”. Well, I don’t care, now it does, and I don’t care whose fault it is. It is a relatively easy algorithm to detect the problem and display them as separate areas.
If everybody was conforming to standards all the time then no single web-browser would ever work satisfactory.
SkyDemon, don’t forget who’s paying your salary.
JnsV wrote:
not just their blanket “we are not responsible for the correctness of anything we display and you should double check everything”-type of disclaimer that annoyingly pops up at every program start.
EuroFlyer wrote:
The only reason we use SD or any other navigation software is that we trust in them to show all information. If they don’t, they’re useless.
I don’t know. It is the PIC’s responsibility to check that he got all the needed information and that it is correct no matter how much you pay SD “do do it for you”. My take on this is that SD does a much better job at this on average, looking at the big picture, than I would do manually anyway. Thus, the chance of me ending up in trouble due to errors in SD are minimal, and much smaller if I did it manually. If you actually know the errors anyway, then what is the problem?
When I was trying to decide which of the many apps available I would use, I narrowed it down to two and then started asking questions of those providers to try and get a feel for how I might be treated as a customer. I am now a loyal EasyVFR customer.
IMHO there will never be a liability on the producer of a “VFR” nav product – because a pilot is theoretically trained to plan a flight A to B without using these software tools. Same with a CFIT – you are supposed to be VMC.
Whether a ~£100/year product should deliver the full data is a good debate. The way these tools are used in practice by the vast majority of their users, it probably should.
When SD first hit the ground I mentioned to the developer, TD, that integrity and accuracy of aeronautical data was a must. At the time, the software displayed a bit of prohibited airspace on the Northern Irish border that had been removed some years earlier (the Irish hadn’t updated their AIP but the UK had). His response was that the SD depiction was fail-safe; sure it was but he missed my point.
Moving forward a few years, I don’t have any visibility how SD gets it’s aeronautical data. The software/app is still good but they need to be wary off the big hitters (Garmin etc) who have excellent aeronautical data and their products (eg Garmin Pilot) are rapidly catching-up/comparable as far as capability is concerned. SD needs to be careful.
