labbadabba
Pattern Altitude
So, I'm trying to understand the appeal or usage of Jepp charts. I find the charts and plates harder to read than the FAA publications.
So, what's the point?
So, what's the point?
This. Jepps are the way to go.Once I got comfortable with the jepps,I never looked back. If you understand them they're great.
Thats funny, because once upon a time the DOT charts sucked and eventually changed to emulate them in many ways.So, I'm trying to understand the appeal or usage of Jepp charts. I find the charts and plates harder to read than the FAA publications.
So, what's the point?
So, I'm trying to understand the appeal or usage of Jepp charts. I find the charts and plates harder to read than the FAA publications.
So, what's the point?
Yea the leather binder that costs like $60.The cool leather binder.
I have always used Jepp charts so I am much more comfortable with them. You should have heard the uproar among the pilots when the company proposed switching to government charts to save money. They actually changed their minds and stuck with Jepp.
Back in the day, the National Ocean Service (NOS) charts were pretty bad. There was a color and formatting upgrade instituted with the National Aeronautical Charting Office (NACO), which is what NOS became. Now NACO is known as AeroNav (http://aeronav.faa.gov). AeroNav adopted some of Jeppesen's standards in revising their own charts, making the government versions much more user friendly than they ever used to be. Since that formatting change, I have never once heard anyone prefer Jepp charts.
Or, conversely, perhaps when the U.S. taxpayers stop paying for your "free" FAA charts.When Jepp puts them up for free, then they MAY be the way to go. Then again, most of the guys using jepps probably aren't paying for them.
I use Jepp in the jet and govt everywhere else. I don't find them all that different.
In addition to international support, Jepp provides company-specific charting that fits within their unique numbering scheme for organizing them. Companies pay a premium for this I'm quite sure.
There's a Jepp competitor that many foreign carriers use, but I can't remember the name. I've never seen their charts.
Than, why would one chart have LPV and the other not?Maybe their charts are tailored for what the operator can fly?
That looks like a cluster.Here's another Lido chart where they do chart LPV minimums. Strange.
Than, why would one chart have LPV and the other not?
It's a German outfit called Lido. They chart only airports of interest to air carriers and they chart only Approach Category C and D minimums. They have lots of QC issues. FedEx used them for a time, then subsequently went back to Jeppesen. Attach is a Lido chart for Farmington, New Mexico. The approach has LPV minimums, for some reason Lido doesn't chart them.
Hope their QC issues weren't the "drive you into the rocks" kind. The shading in the profile view gives a good "picture" of minimum segement altitudes
Jeppesen does the profile shading when it is in the state source.
It's a German outfit called Lido. They chart only airports of interest to air carriers and they chart only Approach Category C and D minimums. They have lots of QC issues. FedEx used them for a time, then subsequently went back to Jeppesen. Attach is a Lido chart for Farmington, New Mexico. The approach has LPV minimums, for some reason Lido doesn't chart them.
Or, conversely, perhaps when the U.S. taxpayers stop paying for your "free" FAA charts.