The same issue hapenned with Madrid TMA. One year ago, more or less, the TMA was redefined. Now there are no VFR sectors inside Class A airspace (?!). Instead the TMA has been divided into sectors and the base of each sector is located at a different altitude. Thanks to that, Madrid TMA is now correctly depicted in SkyDemon. I suppose Italy will have to go the same way sooner or later because as Moonet Driver says, it is not ICAO/EASA compliant.
(And yes, Pocket FMS has the VFR Sectors correctly labled and included)
Thank you for the acknowledgement!
The reason that PocketFMS (EasyVFR) has the correct VFR sectors, is because they add it by hand going way beyond that which is easily machine readable.
It is indeed very labour intensive, but that's the cost of having a high quality database ;)
Other examples of where the PocketFMS database goes beyond what's easily machine readable are LARS sectors in the UK, or the airway system in the UK (blocks of class A airspace) which are neatly merged together if they have the same vertical extent and same controlling authority (just like on a paper chart). This can't be done automatically, and is indeed very labour intensive, but it makes the airspace structure much more readable.
dp
Do the Jepp VFR/GPS charts show the Italian airspace correctly?
Of course, they do.
It shows that there is no free lunch. Jeppesen MFDVFR is more expensive than SD, but there is also more human being input behind their product.
@Urs: the VFR sectors are considered airspace G.
This is one of the reasons that when I did my VFR Europe presentation I said that people should use the "real printed" charts (paper or electronic) and not fly with synthetic map products.
I got some "strong views" on that, especially from the very vocal Skydemon crowd, but I stand by that view absolutely.
Once one has loads of experience and knows exactly where one is going in a specific area then by all means use whatever presentation you like.
For example I am happy to fly along the south UK coast (like I did today) just looking at the airspace boundary lines on the KMD550 MFD, which are useless for airspace class and vertical extents but I "happen to already know" which line is the edge of the 5500ft airspace and I just keep to the south of it. Same way that a pilot who just always bimbles up and down the coast is probably not going to buy the VFR chart more often than once a decade...
But I would never suggest using these products as the primary reference for flight planning and flying around Europe. They will have errors, loads of them, and the errors usually won't get reported simply due to the GA activity distributions around Europe. Also only a few European countries are comfortable with English and the rest will probably not bother to contact the vendor.
Hi
@Urs: the VFR sectors are considered airspace G.
In which case the lower limits of the A airspace MUST be adjusted accordingly. Not only that, but there is no NEED to keep the A airspace so low, as there can't be any IFR in that area anyhow due to the obstacle clearance.
And if they are Class G (which is not documented anywhere, purely "considered" doesn't make it such) then why is radio contact to information compulsory?
As the situation is, those sectors are bunches of airspace which are CLEARLY airspace A but have been declared open to VFR. That is illegal according to ICAO and it is high time that EASA put their feet down and sort this mess out.
If I understand you correctly, SkyDemon (which I do not know) shows only the class A airspace. Well, they are correct, as this is the ruling airspace in that area.
Peter,
printed charts are nice and beautiful, but they do NOT help the situation in Italy. The primary problem is that their senseless airspace A classification is
I have long decided that I will not ever penetrate these "VFR Sectors" but as long as I fly VFR only, Milano and Roma's TMA's for me are off limits GND to my service ceiling. Neither will I fly 1500 ft AGL in an area where bad visibility and heat turbulence are every day affairs nor will I fly at this altitude over the sea as the Roman block demands.
In short: This is NOT according to ICAO
AFAIK national differences are allowed as long as they are published.
VFR in Class A isn't all that uncommon, there are VFR routes through Paris class A as well
Once again, the VFR sectors in the italian AIP are class G. No need to talk about "VFR in class A" in this context.
See here (remarks section on the top of the chart).
Hi Philipp,
I don't want to quarrel with you here, thanks for the chart. Unfortunately it is still the same outcome, never mind some "remark" on the top of the page. Milano TMA is and stays Class A and the VFR Sectors are part of it, purely legally speaking. So whenever you are in one of them, you are in a "special" sector of a Class A airspace which has been declared to be treated as "G".
I would not think that this is very good for clarity and that is certainly why several flight planners will not represent it the way the Italians treat it.
Anyway, I can stay out of this as I am not flying into these areas in VFR. Done it a few times in my younger days (at least then they still had the CVFR routes SRN-VOG at FL110/120) but ended up several times bumping around in an unsafe altitude and barely 5 km in smog, so that means for me, thank you, but no.
I don't know what your problem is, the cart is pretty clear. Note that there are also VFR transit routes in Paris class A. Everything is possible in aviation, only IFR is luckily very uniform around the globe (it would be a real issue if it weren't). VFR is diverse and if you decide to skip Italy because you don't like how they design your TMA, then do it. You're missing a lot though.
Greece doesn't have any airspace classification at all and yet it's a very nice country to fly in, both VFR and IFR. Right now air is just air, no A, B, C, D, E, F, G and there aren't even official VFR maps. To be fair, Greece is in the process of defining its airspace as two forum members outlined.
People tend to think that ICAO rules are binding, they are not. It's just an international treaty, not a source of law. AIPs are supposed to have a chapter listing in which ways a country deviates from ICAO standards (GEN 1.7). Often those chapters are not small, the one from Switzerland is 20 pages long!
Urs,
wow. As you admit yourself, you've taken a long hiatus from flying. Since returning to active flying, you have not been to Italy. So it looks looks you are talking about something you haven't done for more than ten years. You need to brush up your knowledge. For example, calling FIS when operating within the lateral limits of Milan TMA is not (generally) required any longer. You would have to study the AIP, not just talk about things you used to do years ago.
I never said that the italian AIP is well written nor that the airspace is well designed. It's all a load of rubbish. But I can't help it. My job is merely to explain to people how to make the best of the situation and I think I do rather well, if I may say so.
OTOH, as Achim mentioned, you seem to have made up your mind already about the entire issue, so why continue to discuss? No interest from my side.
I would rather like to come back to the topic of digital products and quality of aeronautical data. One other important issue is airways in UK airspace. AFAIK, these are well depicted in Skydemon, even though their outlines are not described by coordinates in the UK AIP (look at ANP, where these airways are all missing completely!). So, it seems like in their home country, SD does go the extra mile (obviously, they have to). But in countries further afield, they don't.
So, until they don't bring the quality of their european aeronautical data to the next level, there is no way pilots can use SD to substitute their regular paper charts as the primary planning and inflight source of airspace information. A real pity, as the product is neat.
Any more views on PocketFMS? As Colm pointed out, in terms of aeronautical data, they do seem to go the extra mile, for UK as well as for Italy for example. But their map design looks like..erm....no comment.
