So, what do American pilots fly with?
I am sure they don’t fly with paper charts as the primary guidance – not even under VFR. They probably have the Sectionals running as a GPS moving map, which is perfectly good.
If such raster charts were available essentially free for all of Europe, the vector products we have here would have been dead in the water. Nobody would have paid for them! They exist only because the European maps are
Why are Jepp terminal charts a fraction of the cost of the European ones? Because the American government-produced terminal charts are free! And they are cockpit-usable, whereas most of the European (AIP) charts are not cockpit-usable.
And why do Garmin (etc) offer only Jepp charts on their panel mount products? Because Jepp pay Garmin for the use of the platform!
Nothing has changed in human nature and incentives since the pyramids were built.
Yes, everybody has sectionals running as raster on tablets.
The fact that we don’t have free and uniform raster maps has accelerated the adoption of vector maps which are technology a step ahead of raster maps. So we are leading here compared to the US. Not all that bad…
And your little survey so far has shown that most pilots actually prefer vector maps. I’m glad raster maps are dead in Europe.
The only difference between raster maps and vector maps is that vector maps can be rotated, track up, heading up, etc.
Raster maps can be layered just as vector maps, but usually they aren’t because the copyright holder is worried about piracy of the raw database so they let out only the combined version 
In the UK, even the (AFAIK) sole licensee of the CAA ones – Memory Map – do not get the separate layers.
The problem with rotatable maps is that they have to contain much less information – because the algorithms for laying out rotatable text labels and de-conflicting / de-cluttering everything is massively complex and nobody has yet done it successfully. Presenting information on a map is a real art and any software-generated map has to throw away much of what a human-generated raster map could successfully contain.
As a result of the stranglehold on copyright and mapdata piracy fears, and notwithstanding the fact that all the aviation charts were produced using taxpayer money, Europe is flying around with maps which look like they were produced for Teletubbies (just my opinion, you understand…)
In the US everybody flies with ForeFlight (rastered sectionals).
Peter wrote:
Presenting information on a map is a real art and any software-generated map has to throw away much of what a human-generated raster map could successfully contain.
Which is why I prefer the rastered sectionals in ForeFlight….. which, btw, seems to be what almost anyone round here uses.
Slightly off-topic: I recently flew from KSMO to Big Bear (L35) and had a go at the synth vision in ForeFlight (this was a severe clear day, so not used in anger). Amazing, in a pinch this can be a life saver if you have to go down into a valley through clouds w/o navaids. For those not familiar with it: L35 sits at 6700ft in a valley that is surrounded by mountains ranging from 8500 to 11500ft.
Which is why I prefer the rastered sectionals in ForeFlight….. which, btw, seems to be what almost anyone round here uses.
Foreflight is fantastic for VFR, and I also carry a (usually expired) sectional or TAC as a back up. If Foreflight is in ‘track up’ I can rotate the paper chart (the same chart as Foreflight) between track up and north up, glancing occasionally back and forth between paper and iPad to verify my mental image of how those Class B blocks are arranged. Sometimes I do it the other way around, north up on Foreflight. Either way works for me once in a terminal area Class B maze; I’ve yet to go where I shouldn’t have been. In contrast, flying with a friend behind his G1000 panel, I get a bit antsy at his lack of chart-style airspace info for VFR.
I generally have a Garmin 196 and an iPhone running Foreflight somewhere in the cockpit too, and if there a magenta line set up for the flight it’ll be on both i-thingies automatically, one in my pocket or whatever. The 196 seems stone age now, but it works and runs a long time on batteries. Still a reliable back up regardless of crude charts with little info.
@172driver, very impressive re Big Bear and synthetic vision. I’m not sure I’d have the cojones to try it in marginal weather, but a great experiment.
Yeah, Big Bear was / is the perfect testing ground for this feature. What’s really cool is that it splits the screen (can go full-screen if you want) running a fully zoomable sectional or TAC alongside. This gives you pretty perfect situational awareness and this is also where, IMHO, raster charts are better than vector charts as they depict terrain. Probably not that important in the UK, Benelux or northern Germany, but if you fly in mountainous areas the ‘cumulus granitus’ takes on an altogether different importance. Btw, DA on the day at Big Bear was 10.300ft……
achimha wrote:
The fact that we don’t have free and uniform raster maps has accelerated the adoption of vector maps which are technology a step ahead of raster maps.
Here in Norway all data is freely available for anyone to download. This is vector maps of several scales (detail), a multitude of raster maps (which are made from vector maps), extremely detailed 3D data and a bunch of other things. Some kids have made Norway in Minecraft using these data ICAO (or Avinor or whoever) and the Air Force (Forsvarets milirærgeografiske tjeneste, FMGT) use this data to make their 1:500.000 ICAO raster maps and 1:250.000 M517 low flying raster maps. You need special mapping software to use the data, or some converter, but it’s all there for free, and I’m sure no problem for anyone into mapping. You can use everything online, on PC or special apps, but that’s not very practical for the stuff you use maps for (except moving maps), therefore most people purchase paper maps. The air ambulance use Euronav from Euroavionics, and can use whatever map available as I understand, vector, raster or a mix in tailor made solutions.
It’s just a shame that Kartverket is responsible for all mapping data except air maps. Air maps used to be the responsibility of Luftfarsverket (now transformed to Avinor as the operational entity and Luftfartstilsynet (LT) as the “CAA”), but Avinor has become a semi-commercial bureaucracy nonsense that would gladly sell their grandmothers if they could. The digital versions of the M517 maps of the Air Force is nowhere to be seen, they seem to only supply paper maps to the general public (who wants paper maps for flying when digital alternatives exists?)
Anyway, all maps today are vector format in their original form (lines, points and shapes) as I understand it. Raster maps are just printed special versions made for specific purposes, “hand made” special versions if you will. The raster maps from Kartverket are all TIFF format, while the vector maps are some special mapping format.
If SD and others creates unified mapping systems for Europe, that is fine. But in the end it’s just yet another proprietary commercial system that eventually will disappear. Maps should be free (digital raster and vector format), and it is ultimately the responsibility of EASA to make that happen.
I have always felt uneasy when using vector charts. You never know just which obstructions the vector chart software has hidden or ‘layered out’ of the display and with some navigation software the results are not even consistent. eg NOTAMed obstructions appearing with their heights but wind turbines appearing without, despite being higher than surrounding terrain which does show heights. Versatile they may be, but you never know what’s missing from your vector chart! At least with raster charts what you see is what you get.
Here is a link to a Yachting Monthly article about the dangers of using vector charts for marine navigation. It’s a bit verbose but the point is well made about the dangers of vector charts ‘layering’ obstacles out and applies equally to aviation.
I agree with statement that lack of unified chart format helped us with having vector options. On the other hand, what I like on the raster/paper is the immediate feeling of distance. Once I was on a short hike and had Google maps only. Not an ideal solution and the same is IMHO applicable in the air. I get the “million” chart at EDNY earlier this year and have it as back up with me. But to be honest, with G1000 or at least 430 you have all you need for longer (IFR) flight – but paper back up is making you somehow comfortable. And if I want to go VFR using visual navigation only? I do not think you can do it seriosly with Skydemon……as support in the areas you know or to know where is magenta line is taking you….Am I too old to enjoy “pure” navigation in a unknown area with paper and pencil line only? But I was not that crazy, I have ipad, Skydenom abd battery pack up and running behind me ready….
