Admittedly a lot of the resulting data is crap (e.g. Much of the data Jepp publish is not found in the AIPs e.g. I would say that the main reason a redraft is needed is because the AIP terminal charts are intended for reference use, not operational use. Much of the source ( AIP) data is of poor quality and has to be interpreted/redrafted
Generally I dislike conspiracy theories but there might be something to this one, considering that Annex 4 recommends the charts to be in A5 format!
If you think I am wide of the mark, speak to one of the national CAA chart product managers and watch his face carefully while you ask him why they don’t do the terminal charts in a nice A5 format like Jepps do Getting a VFR flight planning product accurate across Europe, including places where there is little GA (much of Europe ) is a huge long term effort and only the oldest contenders get anywhere near there. But then in VFR you should expect that since a miniscule % of PPLs fly internationally so errors aren’t going to get reported. Years ago I used to fly with the Jepp Bottlang VFR guides (which AFAICT have been replaced by the Jeppview VFR section now, and probably eventually the Ipad stuff like JeppFD- VFR will have it all transferred) and their inaccuracies were legendary further south.
It is done by dedicated people in OPS back at the base and they don’t use the Text Pages and/or can’t be bothered to tell Jepp of any errors. Clearly it is not a priority for them, probably because most of their business is the sort of aviation where the pilots don’t do their preflight stuff. Why Jepp don’t pick up good data from the obvious place to look at first (the AIP) I have no idea. Paradoxically, Spain is one place where aviation runs in a “funny way” on the ground but the AIP is of good quality. This was Spain, btw, which is probably as southern europe as it can get. I have made the opposite experience, for example fuel provider phone numbers missing from the Jepp text section, but there in the AIP and even correct.
0 kommentar(er)
