Yes but Cartabossy is irrelevant, because France is covered by SIA (IMHO the best for touring unless you like to fly close to the ground in which case you use IGN 
), the UK is covered by the CAA charts (which are basically very clear so long as you realise that stuff like the AIAAs are basically meaningless), Germany has the very good DFS charts, and much of Ireland is on the N UK or Scottish chart.
Last time I tried to buy Cartabossy I got the previous year's version, so I wonder how often they bother to update them.
It would be interesting to hear from a French pilot about how many French pilots use Cartabossy.
The following countries will not be updated during 2013: - United Kingdom - Ireland - France - Poland - Denmark/Sweden - Southeast Europe
I am not so suprised at that choice of countries to drop, because they have usable local charts, or they have almost no GA and what they have is smart enough to go electronic (Poland, and SE Europe which in Jepp's case is basically Slovenia and Croatia).
The one exception is Germany which they are probably keeping because Jepp have their HQ there
[...]France is covered by SIA (IMHO the best for touring unless you like to fly close to the ground in which case you use IGN ), [...]
The trouble with the SIA is that they don't have all the airspace info. I can't remember what it is that they were missing, but I do remember that some info (eg altitudes, class or frequency) was not included for certain types of airspace. The airpace was printed, but not the extra details. (I don't hvae one here with me to check which details it was.)
This was necessary because of the scale of the chart, but meant that it wasn't useable without something else to supplement it.
The SIA charts have all the controlled airspace info but don't have the vertical details of the danger and prohibited areas - only their lateral dimensions.
They come with a little book and you have to look up each one. The plus is that much more info is there e.g. the active hours and contact numbers.
Generally, one uses the SIA charts to fly in the Class E airspace ("French airways" in "UK PPL airways=class-A speak") FL065-FL115 and that avoids nearly all the danger stuff anyway.
For low level flight, say 2000ft, the IGNs are much nicer, but don't contain the IFR intersections which are ever so handy for programming a GPS route.
That fits with my memory. So you miss the vertical dimensions of the danger/prohibited/restriced areas. There are so many of them, that that makes it really restrictive.
I know you prefer to fly on the airways, but to that adds too much track miles for no real advantage, so I prefer to negociate may way across airspace in the way. Also being VFR only, I don't have the luxuary of being able to guarantee a flight above FL65, so I could well end up lower anyway, meaning I'm back to needing those altitudes.
I always found the 5000ft limit on the IGN charts a pain, but see that's been increased this year.
Using PFMS has been the solution for me.
Cartabossy is a 1:1,000,000 chart, and whilst I carry their UK chart and find it useful, the level of detail is inadequate to a lot of VFR flying. Long trips - yes, a couple of hours fine nav in something very slow or finding an obscure grass strip, no.
G
I was looking at the 1:1M UK chart at Transair just today.
I noticed it is composed by Cartabossy in France, which was amusing
the level of detail is inadequate to a lot of VFR flying
Perhaps it depends on the sort of nav you enjoy, and places you like to go to.
For map/stopwatch flying it is close to useless, but then the 1:500k chart isn't so good for that either - that's what the 1:250k charts seem to be for. They also cover the smaller strips. But many strips are not on any chart; I was once told by Sussex Police they keep an eye on 80 strips and most of them are totally private, with lat/long data in some strip flying publications.
But of those pilots who are likely to fly any distance for which a whole-UK chart has the slightest significance, how many won't be using GPS? In that case, the 1M chart gives you a really nice clean overview. It's amazing to see how much Class G the UK has!
That 1:1M chart got severely slagged off on the usual UK chatter sites so, in the context of radio nav (GPS etc), I did look at it closely and wondered what is really wrong with it, and couldn't see anything.
Sure it leaves out stuff like AIAAs but all they mean is that you ought to be in radio contact. Also the level of military flying in the UK seems awfully low these days.
I think I will use it from next year onwards. Saves paying for 3 charts and it covers Ireland too.
Despite what some retailers are saying Jepp have not announced they will be stopping the VFR/GPS charts. No decision has been taken. The official line is that the resources of the mapping team were diverted to Jeppesen FliteDeck Mobile VFR.
The SkyDemon brigade will say that JFDMVFR is rubbish (as is everything not published by SD in their view) but for a 1.0 release it is not bad. I just wish they had not omitted the BeNeLux charting at launch.
Should Jeppesen stop publishing the VFR/GPS charts altogether I believe that would be tantamount to abandoning the VFR market ( as well as shafting the long-suffering dealer network)
According to posts today on the Flyer Forum some dealers have now been told by Jepp that they won't be publishing the 1:500,000 for the UK and a few other countries this year.
I disagree with you Peter - I don't choose to put all my faith in a single system of GPS (and I teach VFR flying and occasionally compete in no-GPS-permitted nav competitions, so need to use good paper charts for those, irrespective of anything else). The lack of virtually any topographic information, places names for just about anywhere smaller than a major city, or much by way of makes the 1m chart inadequate for true VFR flying. For "pseudo-IFR" (long high level legs VFR using radio nav), or national-level long trip planning, it's great and I like having one in my flight bag. There is more detail on a 1:250,000 chart than a 1:500,000, but not that much, and even my microlight at 60kn goes off the edge of one of those charts pretty quickly. Half-mil remains to me the optimal scale - and presumably to most other people as this is the favourite VFR chart worldwide.
I've just made the decision to give Memory-Map a go for a while and see how that works as a substitute.
G
I've just made the decision to give Memory-Map a go for a while and see how that works as a substitute.
You will find it's fine. I have been flying with MM for years - ever since they stitched up the deal with the UK CAA. Under winXP (the old LS800 tablet) it was a fine product, with a basic functionality but working solidly.
The Ipad version of MM is crappy and just about hangs in there, marginally aided by the marginally working Ipad2 internal GPS. In an "open" aircraft it should be OK but in a metal one you may need a remote GPS.
Partly because MM never supported any non-UK aviation charts (despite stating they would) I mostly moved to Oziexplorer, under which I can run the same charts, even though I have to obtain them via other routes (converted etc). Ozi runs all kinds of other charts, for all of Europe as needed, and doesn't impose licensing restrictions. Functionality-wise - for aviation - it is about the same as MM i.e. close to nonexistent route planning facilities. It's just a moving map version of the paper chart, which I think is great - and the SD crowd disagrees
But there are many ways to plan the routes...
For "pseudo-IFR"
What is that? It does sound a little derogatory to pilots who for whatever reason have only got a PPL (anything more is a great deal more effort) but wish to use the best available tools to get from A to B.
VFR is flight in accordance with Visual Flight Rules. That is the privilege you get with the basic PPL. You are under absolutely zero, zilch, none whatsoever obligation to navigate using ground feature identification, which is nothing to do with flying legally IAW VFR. If PPL privileges required nav by ground features, radio nav would be banned unless one had an instrument qualification.
But you know all that
So I don't see that we disagree, and I agreed above that the 1:1M chart is no good for ground feature navigation.
I don't choose to put all my faith in a single system of GPS
I didn't say I do. This is one of the central problems in all these old navigation debates. Whenever anybody mentions GPS, somebody asserts that that person is relying solely on GPS. We need to get away from this because, in reality, anybody flying seriously will have multiple fallbacks e.g.
Genghis, I was talking to Jepp today, expressing my concerns and was told no decisions have been made regarding the publication schedule.
