France.
You can browse all plates in a convenient interface with Autorouter.
Agree, France ones look good.
I would have no problem with using them instead of Jepp if only we had Europe covered same way…
I assume France have no issues with copyrights to their own format. Any ideas how to convince SIA to give it to other EU countries and than these countries adopting it 
?
QuoteWho says they are not designed for cockpit use?
Okay you challenged me so I went to dig into it
Doc 8126 states: Instrument Approach Chart — ICAO.
This chart is produced for all aerodromes used by civil aviation where instrument approach procedures have been established. A separate Instrument Approach Chart ICAO has been provided for each approach procedure. The aeronautical data shown include information on aerodromes, prohibited, restricted and danger areas,radio communication facilities and navigation aids,minimum sector altitude, procedure track portrayed in plan and profile view, aerodrome operating minima, etc.This chart provides the flight crew with information that will enable them to perform an approved instrument approach procedure to the runway of intended landing_ including the missed approach procedure and where applicable, associated holding patterns
Okay you win.. 
It’s a missed opportunity for the various CAAs, but then (as I wrote before) I think they have done a business deal with Jepp for the use of their IP and they are unable to produce Jepp-like terminal charts even if they wanted to.
I don’t think so its just how Doc 8126 is the reference still e.g take the Donlon ILS27 example as template not bad ..I think but open for creativity.. .
ICAO is still far from using XML or even S1000D publications standards that are now common in the Aerospace industry
Who says they are not designed for cockpit use?
Considering that they’re generally in A4 format (even though ICAO recommends A5), subtle differences between different countries, a lot of small text, sometimes info that you need at the same time is spread over different charts, I would say that they are not in practise suitable for cockpit use.
One thing is that if you are already familiar with a particular AIP plate, then it could work quite well, but I am definitely not comfortable with just pulling out an AIP plate and flying it.
For my recent flight to Friedrichshafen, I looked at the German AIP plates and even tried them with a simulator. In the end I didn’t feel comfortable using them in flight, so I bought a Jepp trip kit.
In the end I didn’t feel comfortable using them in flight, so I bought a Jepp trip kit.
Now that’s quite astonishing, given that german AIP plates are IMO very close to the Jepp layout. The only real difference IMO is the lack of DA/MDA numbers
Another reason was that the AIP plates would not be useable on a 8" tablet, which is what I use as Electronic Flight Bag. I could of course print the plates for my destinations and expected alternates in advance, but in case of replanning I would have a problem.
Yes. That is one of my pet peeves too. Makes me think that having a Jeppesen subscription is not a luxury after all.
This could be read as an advert for Jeppesen plates…
During my IR training, my instructor emphasised the benefits of Jeppesen plates – especially that they are very consistent in format and comprehensive in content. But since I make only a handful of approaches outside the UK, I felt the annual subscription price is costly and unjustified. It would work out around £50 extra per approach or so. Instead, I rely on publicly available/free IFR plates from the national AIPs. I don’t think I am very unusual in this regard.
I planned to land IFR at Rotterdam and was pretty certain from the weather forecast that I would get vectored for the ILS runway 24. So I studied the plate beforehand and picked out the ILS frequency. I’m sure you can quickly determine this from the plate below… (link to Dutch AIP for fullsize one)
Perhaps I should have twigged that since 110.4 is the ATIS, it probably wouldn’t also be the ILS frequency. I manually loaded that into the GTN650, also into the DME and second VOR receiver (no glideslope indicator fitted) which all indicated distance and intercept as expected. I activated a vectored intercept on the GTN with the autopilot that worked perfectly except the glideslope wasn’t indicated. Approach Control could see I had established on the localiser so handed me over to the tower at the FAF, but I declined because I didn’t think this was a good time to bluff my way through and descend with an unplanned localiser only approach in IMC. As soon as I explained I had no glideslope indication, the controller suggested I might try the ILS frequency of 110.9 which immediately lit up the glideslope indicators. Without fuss I was re-vectored around for a second attempt which worked perfectly.
I’d been trained to load the frequency manually rather than using the GTN internal database. Loading (but not activating) an ILS approach presets the standby NAV frequency to that of the ILS, which you then have to manually toggle into the active field. Activating the approach doesn’t affect the frequency selection. I had effectively ignored the GTN database and manually set what I thought was the correct frequency instead.
Looking again at the plate, I see the LOC frequency is shown in a little box on the right rather than in the middle of the plate diagram as found in FAA and some other country charts. Learning points are to reconsider whether the high cost of Jepp plates is worth it or not, plus to make my SOP a check of the standby frequency suggested by the GTN before toggling active rather than trying to enter it manually.
I hope others might benefit from this by learning through my mistakes
[I replaced the image with the best possible quality one – PDF to Jpeg, margins cropped off, and saved to 925px wide in photoshop – Peter]
I agree with you that this plate (and probably more in NL) are hard to read. A bit of study is really needed before starting the engine. Most training outfits use the Jeppesen method because of the same reasons you instructor mentioned. And I prefer the Jeppesen above the ‘free’ ones for the same reason.
As a rule of thumb I always remember that ILS frequencies should have an uneven number. Starting from 108.10 till 111.95 the ILS will only use the uneven numbers as the first digit after the decimal. So 108.15, 108.3, 108.35, 108.5, 108.55, … will all be ILS frequencies, where the VOR’s will have 108.00, 108.05, 108,2, …
This rule of thumb helped me a couple of times where I entered a wrong ILS frequency and didn’t get a identifier morse code.
