Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1526598
riverrock wrote:The CAA charts are significantly clearer regarding ground features and elevation compared to SD's. There isn't enough detail in SD's to identify ground features using the charts (without GPS) alone IMHO and in the air, Google Maps sat view isn't available. The SD charts are clearer with regards elevation when terrain safe is on - but you then lose the detail in the maps themselves.
To me airspace in flight is clearer on SD as higher level stuff is dynamically hidden.
However when planning, I want to know where that higher airspace is to give me a better picture of whats around me. When dynamic hiding is turned off in SD (or the heights set to FL100) the airspace display isn't as clear as the CAA chart, without plotting a route through somewhere and seeing the vertical view ("virtual radar").


You can use CAA charts on SD if you prefer, ditto equivalents in France and Germany but I find SD 2 a perfect compromise right across Europe and it's easy to switch to airways mode as well.
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1526606
johnm wrote:You can use CAA charts on SD if you prefer, ditto equivalents in France and Germany but I find SD 2 a perfect compromise right across Europe and it's easy to switch to airways mode as well.

Are you confusing using the CAA chart "style" colour scheme with the charts themselves? Completely different things.
User avatar
By MichaelP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1526610
Image

Last year I connected my iPad via Wifi to Paul's home made GPS ads-b unit and it worked perfectly.

Yesterday I tried to do the same with Stratux system (Flightbox) and I could not connect Airnav Pro...
There's the free FlightPlan Go app here, and this did connect to the Stratux system.

My objective is to have this up and running before I fly around Bangkok again... No good maps available.

I don't believe ForeFlight covers Thailand...

Do I have to buy another app?
Image
User avatar
By T67M
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1526611
I presume you mean "NATS chart", not "CAA chart", since the CAA no longer produce any charts.

As for comparing SD "CAA style" with NATS charts, I agree - they are completely different things. One is published once per year, requires the user to hand-draw all the updates, and frequently contains multiple significant errors. The charts on my tablet, on the other hand, are updated automatically every 28 days, and the very small number of errors are fixed promptly, generally on the next update, sometimes earlier.
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1526623
In SkyDemon I also use SD Chart Style 2. Certainly used to be the case that the "UK CAA/NATS" style in SkyDemon didn't include some features that are in the SkyDemon styles - although at some stage I think Tim and his merry people must have updated the CAA/NATS style as I can't see anything obvious missing.

The focus in SkyDemon is on airspace and aeronautical features - ground features are an after thought. Nothing wrong with that - but you need to work out what you want from a chart.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1526640
Are you confusing using the CAA chart "style" colour scheme with the charts themselves? Completely different things.


Quite possibly since I very rarely look at a chart.
#1526707
riverrock wrote:The CAA charts are significantly clearer regarding ground features and elevation compared to SD's. There isn't enough detail in SD's to identify ground features using the charts (without GPS) alone IMHO and in the air, Google Maps sat view isn't available. The SD charts are clearer with regards elevation when terrain safe is on - but you then lose the detail in the maps themselves.
To me airspace in flight is clearer on SD as higher level stuff is dynamically hidden.
However when planning, I want to know where that higher airspace is to give me a better picture of whats around me. When dynamic hiding is turned off in SD (or the heights set to FL100) the airspace display isn't as clear as the CAA chart, without plotting a route through somewhere and seeing the vertical view ("virtual radar").


I know that I am in the minority here, but that is why I prefer RunwayHD to SD, it uses the real CAA charts, I have 1/500 and 1/250 so can zoom in, so I feel like I have the best of both.

I know SD flyers like the "de-clutter" of thier charts, but RunwayHD is great for me.
Nick, nallen liked this
#1526709
riverrock wrote:
johnm wrote:You can use CAA charts on SD if you prefer, ditto equivalents in France and Germany but I find SD 2 a perfect compromise right across Europe and it's easy to switch to airways mode as well.

Are you confusing using the CAA chart "style" colour scheme with the charts themselves? Completely different things.


Just for clarity, not advertising, the RunwayHD charts *are* scanned CAA charts, not vector charts using the same colour scheme.

P.S. I have no commercial affiliation with the company that sells RunwayHd, merely a happy customer.
#1527443
G-BLEW wrote:I am sure that…
- We are all governed by the same part NCO
- That Part NOC doesn't require paper charts

I know that Peter is saying something else, I just don't know how the authorities can require something different when we've all been under Part NCO since last August, sounds a bit like Dutch gold-plating to me.

Ian

Not gold-plating, just a matter of a Competent Authority's interpretation - it's complicated... the key is in the phrase
GM1 NCO.GEN.135 wrote: An electronic storage medium is acceptable if accessibility, usability and reliability can be assured.

The Dutch NAA* seem to have decided that they deem reliability to be assured with two electronic devices with current software ... current because
AMC1 NCO.GEN.135 wrote: The aeronautical data should be appropriate for the current aeronautical information regulation and control (AIRAC) cycle.

You're lucky they didn't want to see a Safety Case (and SIRA), HF Assessment of the Portable EFB Hardware and Type A & B apps to be used (SD, EasyVFR etc), prove the mounting system (Viewable Stowage), EMI ground and flight tests, 6 months' trial, minimum 60% battery charge for dispatch (both devices) etc etc; then detail all Operating Procedures in an EFB Manual (what we had to do to gain EFB approval on a Part-CAT AOC fleet).

*The Dutch NAA is the Competent Authority designated by a Member State (NL) with the necessary powers for the oversight of persons and organisations within that Member State (NL) over State of Operator (eg KLM) or State of Registry (PH reg) operations within the NL; where aircraft of operators under the safety oversight of another Member State (UK, say) can be subject to a ramp inspection, chiefly concerned with the aircraft documents and manuals - which means they can check your compliance with NCO.GEN.135 - Documents, manuals and information to be carried...
My quick paraphrase of Article 3 & 4 of Regulation (EU) 965/2012 on Air Operations (and associated AMC).

More on Ramp Inspections here.
zzzzzzzz
[/ComplianceMode]

Actually, Consolidated EASA Air Ops and AMC is worth bookmarking - it's all in there... :?

HTH
Paul :)