I have just been digging into the Garmin Flitecharts (also called “FlightCharts”) and it looks like they are just the standard AIP charts
Garmin must have sat down and paid some humans to georeference them. That’s quite a job but not even 1% of what it would take to do it properly and do what Jeppesen do
The upper screenshot depicts some MFD/PFD product (G1000?) and I wonder how the resolution copes with the very small text. This is the actual AIP chart
and how is that supposed to be readable?
BTW everything on that Jepp chart is readable on an 800×600 LCD – how tablets were 10 years ago.
Garmin must have sat down and paid some humans to georeference them. That’s quite a job but not even 1% of what it would take to do it properly and do what Jeppesen do
Not really so much effort is required. A couple of years ago, I georeferenced VFR approach charts from the Czech AIP in Oziexplorer. It took me a couple of minutes per chart, plus maybe a couple more minutes for format conversion. And if you have the right kind of map base, the right kind of CAD/vector drawing software, and appropriate graphic templates, then converting AIP charts into Jeppesen-like ones won’t take much effort, either.
Not really so much effort is required. A couple of years ago, I georeferenced VFR approach charts from the Czech AIP in Oziexplorer. It took me a couple of minutes per chart, plus maybe a couple more minutes for format conversion. And if you have the right kind of map base, the right kind of CAD/vector drawing software, and appropriate graphic templates, then converting AIP charts into Jeppesen-like ones won’t take much effort, either.
Agreed. After all, PocketFMS & Sky Demon both georeference large numbers of AIP VFR charts.
I suspect that the real reason that Jepp have so little comptition on the IFR chart design is because so few people buy them. To make any money, you’d really need to break into the airlines market. For that you need a vast coverage from day 1, and 100% accuracy guarantee, and even then it would be a very brave Chief Pilot who decided that he was going to make the decision to change the supplier. In fact I’d hazard a guess that all the airlines probably think they they have some sort of special deal with Jepp, and as a result would be reluctant to change and lose that.
Peter it is readable since you can zoom it. Even Jepp text is hard to read on a G1000 screen. But I agree AIP charts are much worse than Jepp. I use Jepp on ipad but have the Flitecharts as a backup on the MFD.
I agree georeferencing square-projection charts is easy, but redrawing approach charts isn’t.
Take this famous fine piece for Albenga LIQL, with the red arrow showing an ambiguous descent point
Jepp redraw this properly
Yes – airlines will never change. They pay about 10k per worldwide subscription which is nothing.
Peter it is readable since you can zoom it
I can do that on my Nokia too 
the red arrow showing an ambiguous descent point
Huh? What’s ambiguous about this point? It’s at DME 10.4 on the localizer. It couldn’t be much better defined.
Jepp redraw this properly
Huh? The Jepp depiction has quite a few deficiences IMO
What’s ambiguous about this point?
I agree it looks like 10.5 or so but there is no distance shown on the lateral view.
Jepp normally do draw the CD profile so I wonder why not in this case?
•It lacks the DME distance scale …
And what’s between the chart and profile? It seems that it’s DME distance scale on Jepp plate.
I used to use AIP plates (switching to Jepp) and some of them are good (depending on country) but Italian’s are probably the worst ones.
It’s a dive and drive approach, not CDFA
The FAF is at ALB 6 DME and it is charted as a CDFA from that point. Advisory altitudes are tabulated from the FAF.
And what’s between the chart and profile? It seems that it’s DME distance scale on Jepp plate
To me that only looks like a table of jepp recommended altitudes at certain DME distances, and cannot be used to measure DME distances in the vertical view
The FAF is at ALB 6 DME and it is charted as a CDFA from that point.
Somewhat disingenious. That gives you what, 700 ft of continuous descent? The AIP version is charted with a continuous descent of 2500ft, which is IMO saner.
