Jeppesen vs. Government charts

Doc Holliday said:
Just wait until you have to use Lido.
Click to expand...
I'm probably in the minority, but I thought Lido was great once you got used to it. I actually liked their presentation and the color plates.
 
What I don't understand is why worldwide government plates aren't available to the public. When I was in the Air Force, we had worldwide pubs coverage all printed and bound by the government. Why not let civilians use them?
 
Sluggo63 said:
What I don't understand is why worldwide government plates aren't available to the public. When I was in the Air Force, we had worldwide pubs coverage all printed and bound by the government. Why not let civilians use them?
Click to expand...
Do those cover every IFR airport in the world? Such as some small airport Colombia?
 
Sluggo63 said:
I'm probably in the minority, but I thought Lido was great once you got used to it. I actually liked their presentation and the color plates.
Click to expand...
As I recall Lido only charts airports that airlines use.
 
aterpster said:
Do those cover every IFR airport in the world? Such as some small airport Colombia?
Click to expand...
I have no idea. I know there were some oddball airports in there, but I'm sure they're not all in there. You'd be surprised. If some Army C-12 has a reason to go, there might be an approach. Although, I do have to say, every once in a while we have to get permission to use Jepp plates because where we were going wasn't covered in the government books.
 
aterpster said:
As I recall Lido only charts airports that airlines use.
Click to expand...
Again, no idea. We used them at the airline for a while because Jepp electronic versions were horrible. Basically at the time, Jepp's idea of electronic pubs was scans of their existing approach plates. You could even sometimes see the bleed through of the plate on the other side of the page. Lido's plates and charts were al raster (is that the right term) graphics, so fully scalable with the ability to select different layers, etc. They were way superior to Jepp at the time, and once you got used to their format, I actually liked them better. But once Jepp got up off their laurels and made honest-to-goodness electronic pubs, we switched back.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Again, no idea. We used them at the airline for a while because Jepp electronic versions were horrible. Basically at the time, Jepp's idea of electronic pubs was scans of their existing approach plates. You could even sometimes see the bleed through of the plate on the other side of the page. Lido's plates and charts were al raster (is that the right term) graphics, so fully scalable with the ability to select different layers, etc. They were way superior to Jepp at the time, and once you got used to their format, I actually liked them better. But once Jepp got up off their laurels and made honest-to-goodness electronic pubs, we switched back.
Click to expand...
Vector graphics. Jeppesen came up with vector graphic approach charts long before the FAA did. And, even today individual IAP chart files are much smaller with Jeppesen than with FAA charts. 100KB vs. 400KB.

FAA sectional charts, for example, are raster graphics, albeit very good raster graphics.
 
aterpster said:
Vector graphics. Jeppesen came up with vector graphic approach charts long before the FAA did. And, even today individual IAP chart files are much smaller with Jeppesen than with FAA charts. 100KB vs. 400KB.

FAA sectional charts, for example, are raster graphics, albeit very good raster graphics.
Click to expand...
Vector. That's it. Lido had it and Jepp didn't back in the early to mid-2000s. Since our airline was transitioning form paper to electronic, Lido was far superior in the electronic game, just a steep learning curve to transition. Then, once everyone got used to, and comfortable using Lido, we went back to Jepp. Go figure.
 
aterpster said:
And, even today individual IAP chart files are much smaller with Jeppesen than with FAA charts. 100KB vs. 400KB.
Click to expand...
Much. I forget the exact numbers but it's something like the entire Lower 48 in Jepp is smaller than a "local" download in FAA. When you do Jepp in ForeFlight, you don't even select which lower 48 regions you want. You just get the whole package.
 
Sluggo63 said:
What I don't understand is why worldwide government plates aren't available to the public. When I was in the Air Force, we had worldwide pubs coverage all printed and bound by the government. Why not let civilians use them?
Click to expand...
They used to -- it was called the DAFIF. The U.S. was forced to stop distributing it publicly around 2007 because another country objected to having their stuff distributed for free and threatened to stop providing it to the U.S. (we found it later it was Australia). I think the DAFIF still exists, but it's not available for public download. That's what inspired me to start the crowdsourced ourairports.org at the time, though it doesn't have approaches, airways, etc. like the DAFIF did.
 
aterpster said:
Vector graphics. Jeppesen came up with vector graphic approach charts long before the FAA did. And, even today individual IAP chart files are much smaller with Jeppesen than with FAA charts. 100KB vs. 400KB.

FAA sectional charts, for example, are raster graphics, albeit very good raster graphics.
Click to expand...
Sectional charts pretty-much have to be raster graphics—as John Deakin wrote once in Pelican's Perch, they're hand-crafted works of art—but agreed that it's easy enough to distribute approach charts and IFR charts as vector graphics.
 
ja_user said:
It is tough to keep up with all the FF options and features. Which is a great thing.
Click to expand...
As long as pilots know enough not to let those features distract them in the cockpit—most of them should be for use during flight planning or debrief only, while safely on the ground.

In the air, you want a moving map, terrain and obstacle alerts, approach plates, weather and traffic, airport info (runways, frequencies, and taxi diagrams), and not much else; otherwise, the attention you're taking away from your outside or IFR panel scan to play with your tablet is costing you more in added risk than the "features" (in FF, GP, or whatever) are adding in safety value.
 
David Megginson said:
They used to -- it was called the DAFIF. The U.S. was forced to stop distributing it publicly around 2007 because another country objected to having their stuff distributed for free and threatened to stop providing it to the U.S. (we found it later it was Australia). I think the DAFIF still exists, but it's not available for public download. That's what inspired me to start the crowdsourced ourairports.org at the time, though it doesn't have approaches, airways, etc. like the DAFIF did.
Click to expand...

DAFIF definitely exists, though it's not nearly as complete as you'd want it to be. Many, MANY approaches are not in the DAFIF database. It's also nowhere near 100% worldwide. If the USG doesn't fly to that airport, it's hit or miss whether it'll be fully included.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Much. I forget the exact numbers but it's something like the entire Lower 48 in Jepp is smaller than a "local" download in FAA. When you do Jepp in ForeFlight, you don't even select which lower 48 regions you want. You just get the whole package.
Click to expand...
And, Hawaii.
 
jrcox19 said:
DAFIF definitely exists, though it's not nearly as complete as you'd want it to be. Many, MANY approaches are not in the DAFIF database. It's also nowhere near 100% worldwide. If the USG doesn't fly to that airport, it's hit or miss whether it'll be fully included.
Click to expand...
Back in 2007, when the whole thing (airport runway data, airways, fix lat/lon, etc) was available for free download in digital form without signing an NDA, the general word was that the DAFIF was mean to cover a selection of airports suitable for at least emergency use by military jets or transport aircraft. So, for example, my home airport, with a 3,300 ft paved runway, lighting, and winter maintenance was in it, but the little grass strip, or the one with the crumbling 2,000 ft asphalt runway, not usually. It also seemed to help to have an IATA code (not required, but the odds seemed to increase that a smaller airport would be included if it had one).
 
David Megginson said:
Sectional charts pretty-much have to be raster graphics—as John Deakin wrote once in Pelican's Perch, they're hand-crafted works of art—but agreed that it's easy enough to distribute approach charts and IFR charts as vector graphics.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are works of art, so to speak. We are fortunate to live in the digital age, at least in this respect.
 
Martin Pauly said:
Of course, that's an important consideration. We all choose what we spend our money on, and just like a GNS430W lets you navigate to your destination the same way a GTN750 does, some people spend the extra money on the GTN. No different with charts.

- Martin
Click to expand...

That’s a very good explanation. I have the resources to own and maintain two aircraft, but I don’t have a huge reserve of cash. My government charts and 430W work quite nicely freeing up a little extra for other things. If I had a larger reserve budget, I would be upgrading both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top