kaiser
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,441
- Location
- Chicagoland
- Display Name
Display name:
The pilot formerly known as Cool Beard Guy
Now we can start talking about safety…
US Sectionals have lost foreign detail
- Thread starter DesertNomad
- Start date
They made that change to the ACUG. It's unclear what private use strips might lose their "landmark" value.
The FAA policy had been:
4. Private-use airports having emergency landing or landmark values.
FAA Order 7400.2N
Though it did say:
NOTE-
Airports of lesser aeronautical importance may be omitted in congested areas where other airports with adequate and better facilities are available nearby.
Last edited:
c177tx
Pre-Flight
Check your digital chart, it has changed also. Appears that only US airspace is in the traditional VFR sectionals now
Groundpounder
En-Route
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 2,951
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Display Name
Display name:
Emerson Bigguns
You can get Canadian VFR charts for free from the fltplanGo app. Also the base aeronautical charts on Foreflight and Garmin Pilot provide enough info to find your way around.
Got to love the FAA, they just get better every year lol
Maybe one of the FAA heads will take a flight, need to do a emergency landing, fly past a good strip that’s now not charted and end up in the trees or something
…who am I kidding, if that happened they’d blame it on something completely unrelated that would end up hurting the industry
The FAA is no friend to GA, if they had their way it would only be the major government subsidized airlines and government aircraft that could fly, kinda like China, it’s easy to read by them understanding the value in charting those fields anymore
Wish we could just dissolve the FAA and start over
NoHeat
Final Approach
Wow.
It's like a few years ago, when some of the aviation weather charts issued by NOAA stopped showing anything beyond US borders. Which was really stupid since weather moves across borders.
Just like then, safety of flight was compromised. To accomplish what?
It's like a few years ago, when some of the aviation weather charts issued by NOAA stopped showing anything beyond US borders. Which was really stupid since weather moves across borders.
Just like then, safety of flight was compromised. To accomplish what?
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,878
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
Gone from my iFly subscriptions too ...
Shepherd
Final Approach
Actually, it does.
Especially for those of us with no onboard power, minimal instruments and are driven to go out and explore in our planes.
Here is an example from yesterday.
I decided to fly to 06N. I hadn't been there since 1966.
I plotted the course on my paper map at home. Hmmmm. I need to keep clear of the SWF class "D" space, since I rarely fly more than 1,500 agl and I never go near SWF because of the occasional Marine and USAF saturation of airspace.
When they decide to launch all the C-17s and C-130s you don't want to be anywhere near that place.
I use Avare on my phone to help me keep track of distances to things, just in case.
Just as I am about to make the turn around SWF and back onto my planned course, my phone locked up. Crap.
Wait, there is a private field a couple of klicks on, I'll go there and make my turn. Plenty safe.
Except next year the field won't be on the new paper map.
Probably much ado about nothing, but I'm getting old and set in my ways.
Shepherd
Final Approach
Yeah. Make sure you plan your emergencies for airports with better facilities.
Fine if you're in a metro area, but there are times we're out in the boonies and private strips may be the only reachable field.
schmookeeg
En-Route
Since this thread has meandered a bit, I should clarify --
I think moaning about loss of foreign airspace depiction on US charts, when those charts are available via paper and electronic form for a few gallons of 100LL -- is silly.
I think removing private airfields from current US charts is a terrible idea and worth raising a few pitchforks over.
kaiser
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,441
- Location
- Chicagoland
- Display Name
Display name:
The pilot formerly known as Cool Beard Guy
I agree - though the former has me thinking about the definition of "charts" and 91.103. I'm an avid FF user - is their basemap and info available to me sufficient to fly VFR safely and legally? - say FPR to MYAT in my GNS430 equipped plane?
For the latter - in a litigious society such as ours, I would think the FAA would be adding to their risk exposure. 1) they are "taking away" information; 2) they are reducing the scope of 91.103 and our ability to manage the risks of our operation. One high profile off airport landing and I would think they are exposed.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,901
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
The inconvenience factor is much greater than the cost factor. Let's say I want the charts for a flight across the part of Ontario sticking into the Detroit sectional. The options are (1) pay $100 more to Foreflight to get Canada charts, (2) use an EFB with a terrible UI for the flight, or (3) spend a few hours trying to figure out which charts I actually need and then a few weeks waiting for them to show up in the mail. Most pilots faced with those options are going to choose option #4: Follow the magenta line over the black hole on the chart and hope for the best.
Quite true. My Smart Glide ring is usually pretty lonesome, even with private strips included. There is almost no chance I will have an in-flight emergency within gliding range of a public airport. One wonders how much administrative overhead the FAA is really saving by this change in charting, especially if you add back in the time spent/wasted trying to decide which private airports qualify for the more restrictive charting qualification.
Not long ago a US subscription to ForeFlight would allow you access to Canadian charts near the US border. When they took that away, one of their support people told me I could subscribe to Canadian charts, and cancel when I no longer needed access, and the unused subscription would be credited to my account. Never tried it, YMMV.
There's a note on the current Detroit sectional:
"Limited chart information provided outside of U.S. airspace. Refer to DoD (NGA) or foreign flight charts and flight information outside US airspace."
I'm too noob to post links, but there are google results for DoD (NGA) that might get you somewhere.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,901
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
I don't think we got the Canadian charts in the US Foreflight subscription. I just think that Foreflight was using the FAA's charts and those charts included the Canadian airspace near the border. The Canadian charts are very different from the US charts.
I don't think the NGA charts are available to civilians. Maybe severely out-of-date charts, like the Hanoi sectional circa 1968.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 6,524
- Display Name
Display name:
3G
The National Geospatial Agency (NGA) is limited to .mil customers.
schmookeeg
En-Route
I agree with your analysis. Do you find the actions of the #4 set remotely defensible? I would think even having the expired canada charts would meet the emergency/navigational need of an overflight, and be way better than the "aw F it then" set in #4.
I assume garmin pilot allows expired canada charts to coast, like they do with US ones. Same idea I suppose, although it wouldn't carry between iPad upgrades.
I did actually download a few Canadian charts on ForeFlight. Then a revision changed the downloads section and took that ability away. (This was fairly recent.) My above post was based on a phone call with ForeFlight support when they called me after I emailed a complaint.I don't think we got the Canadian charts in the US Foreflight subscription. I just think that Foreflight was using the FAA's charts and those charts included the Canadian airspace near the border. The Canadian charts are very different from the US charts.
I don't think the NGA charts are available to civilians. Maybe severely out-of-date charts, like the Hanoi sectional circa 1968.
I assume NGA isn't for us, but since they added the note on the sectional, I just googled for curiosity.
It's confusing as some of the US sectionals bear Canadian city names: Montreal and Halifax.I don't think we got the Canadian charts in the US Foreflight subscription. I just think that Foreflight was using the FAA's charts and those charts included the Canadian airspace near the border. The Canadian charts are very different from the US charts.
I don't think the NGA charts are available to civilians. Maybe severely out-of-date charts, like the Hanoi sectional circa 1968.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
I haven't checked yet, but I'm assuming this also affects us in Texas. I for one, really want navigation information just to know what I'm looking at across the border in Mexico when I'm in Del Rio, or El Paso, or that kind of area. If the charts were already including that information, I can't for the life of me think why it's good that they stopped. There's a reason our charts overlap, and even if Mexico or Canada provide their own charts, there ought to be a bit of overlap between the US charts and the foreign charts for seamless navigation.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Whelp, here's the look at the San Antonio chart. That's the dumbest thing I've seen with the charts. Great job.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 6,524
- Display Name
Display name:
3G
This is how ifly gps is showing the latest chart that includes Laredo and across the border.
I can select MMNL and bring up the approach freq and basic info on the airports along with comments that information is unverified.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,901
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
I'd have to ask a #4 pilot for his defense. Let me go ask a friend...I agree with your analysis. Do you find the actions of the #4 set remotely defensible? I would think even having the expired canada charts would meet the emergency/navigational need of an overflight, and be way better than the "aw F it then" set in #4.
I assume garmin pilot allows expired canada charts to coast, like they do with US ones. Same idea I suppose, although it wouldn't carry between iPad upgrades.
I keep a (relatively) recent sectional for my area of operations. I use it for flight planning sometimes, in conjunction with FF on my iPad. It's a more convenient format than the electronic version - the detail doesn't fade when you "zoom out." Just much easier to see a broader swath of geography, as opposed to the more limited EFB screen view. I don't use it in-flight, but do haul it along. . .
Each to his own - example - the "tape" displays on our Aspen are fine, but far, far less intuitive than the analog steam gauge AS and ALT presentations - the steam airspeed pointer instantaneously conveys the value simply by it's position on the gauge, assuming you've flown the same plane long enough. Almost the same for the altimeter - no need to read and interpret a number - you know by the pointer positions alone.
Each to his own - example - the "tape" displays on our Aspen are fine, but far, far less intuitive than the analog steam gauge AS and ALT presentations - the steam airspeed pointer instantaneously conveys the value simply by it's position on the gauge, assuming you've flown the same plane long enough. Almost the same for the altimeter - no need to read and interpret a number - you know by the pointer positions alone.
exncsurfer
Pattern Altitude
The map on the efb app will still work without gps. It would just become an electronic "paper chart"
DesertNomad
Pattern Altitude
I had an emergency landing in El Paso in 2018. It was very useful to have a bit of Mexico on my FAA chart to fully evaluate my options with a loss of engine power.
What flight rules does one have to follow when overflying Canada but taking off and landing in the US? Canadian or US rules?
Would the #4 pilot (or any of them using US charts) be compliant with the Canadian regulations?
NoHeat
Final Approach
That’s an example of how safety of flight is harmed by this recent change.
schmookeeg
En-Route
Agree. It's making me consider adding the MX/South America subscription to my EFB since I fly the I-10 corridor enough every year.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Here's an example of how stupid it is to arbitrarily eliminate foreign aeronautical info from US VFR charts.
Tijuana Int'l (MMTJ) is two miles south of Brown Field (KSDM). The runways are of similar size and are aligned roughly the same. They look so similar that ATC likes to hear that you have both airports in sight, so eliminate confusion.
Now MMTJ is depicted on the Sectional and Terminal VFR charts with only a circle.
Tijuana Int'l (MMTJ) is two miles south of Brown Field (KSDM). The runways are of similar size and are aligned roughly the same. They look so similar that ATC likes to hear that you have both airports in sight, so eliminate confusion.
Now MMTJ is depicted on the Sectional and Terminal VFR charts with only a circle.
Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,927
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
When I was an AF pilot training instructor, the bulk of the cross-country navigation training we gave the students was in the IFR system. There were some minimal requirements for VFR legs during their training. I think they needed one or two complete VFR legs from origin to destination, and another where you filed somewhere IFR, then cancelled 80 miles out and proceeded to the field VFR. That was it. Suffice to say, students did not get a lot of exposure to VFR flight.
Consequently, the instructors didn't have much experience with VFR flight either. I came up in the GA world before I started my military flying, so I had a pretty solid background in the VFR flying world, as did a handful of my fellow instructors. The rest were a bit shaky on the pitfalls.
Part of the problem was that the Air Force gave us TPC (Tactical Pilotage Charts) to use for our VFR planning. These are the same scale (1:500,000) as a standard sectional, but with about 1/10 of the information. The TPCs showed MOAs and Restricted airspace, but that was about it. No Class B, C or D areas, VORs or any frequencies.
Here's a picture of the TPC that shows New Orleans and eastward, compared to the New Orleans sectional.
It wasn't uncommon to see students (and IPs) plan a XC leg with no regard to airspace.
"Oh, you're planning on going from Mobile to New Orleans VFR at 6,500'. That sounds good. Do you know where Gulfport's TRSA is?" Then blank looks.
Needless to say, I always planned my XCs on a sectional, and taught my students to do the same.
This new lack of information on the sectionals is troubling...
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 6,524
- Display Name
Display name:
3G
Next time you stop in the KSAT area (from JCT to LBX), let me know and we’ll grab some eats.
exncsurfer
Pattern Altitude
IDK what it looked like before, but here is the border now on Skyvector(pretty sure it just uses the electronic FAA VFR charts that get printed to paper):
exncsurfer
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2017
- Messages
- 2,537
- Display Name
Display name:
Hang 4
I'd be really curious to understand what the rationale for the change is? I can't believe it's a huge savings to the FAA. A lot of folks are saying to just suck it up and buy the CDN and other charts, which is ok if there's an offsetting giant savings somewhere else. I can't for the life of me figure out what that is.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2017
- Messages
- 2,537
- Display Name
Display name:
Hang 4
I have the Garmin pilot Canada subscription BTW - the one thing I notice is that all the Quebec charts are now bilingual. Not sure I looked at Quebec specifically before, but it's clearly the Canada charts that start right at the border, different look and feel from the US ones.
cowtowner
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 599
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowtowner
If you are looking for Mexico VFR charts, good luck. Doesn't exist on Foreflight
you can find the old WAC charts you can download and import as files on the internet with the right Google search. But Mexico doesn't have standard VFR charts