AIP plates which you get georeferenced for free in SD are a pain to use in flight
What problems exactly do you encounter? (Maybe similar as mine…)
take the additional preparation time the AIP plates require. (Computing MDA/DA, visibility minima etc.)
In everyday practice (not on a checkride) do you really do this? And isn‘t it rather limited effort?
For DA/MDA, it is usually (ILS or LPV) 200, otherwise pretty much 250. Then compare with the OCH on the plate.
For RVR/vis, it is anywhere from 550 to 1500 meters, deperending on a couple of factors, but how often does one really actually fly when the vis is below 1500 meters?
boscomantico wrote:
What problems exactly do you encounter? (Maybe similar as mine…)
A4 paper size where some text gets quite small if you shrink the plate to tablet display or even A5 paper size. Also, the precise layout differs between countries. Some countries also divide procedure over different plates in different ways, e.g. in some places you can have separate initial approach plates. Germany has the RNAV overlays to STARs, etc. Some information such as runway lighting, dimensions and omnidirectional departure procedures are not on a plate but in the text section of the AIP. Jeppesen presents all of this on plates in a common format which really is a major advantage. (After listing all these disadvantages I almost change my mind…)
In everyday practice (not on a checkride) do you really do this? And isn‘t it rather limited effort?
No, because so far I use Jepp plates where all this is precomputed.
For DA/MDA, it is usually (ILS or LPV) 200, otherwise pretty much 250. Then compare with the OCH on the plate.
The thing is that if the OCH is < 200’ (which is not that unusual) you have to compute the DA either by finding the threshold altitude and adding 200 or by figuring out the difference between the OCH and 200 and add that to the OCA. Certainly not difficult, but it has to be done.
For RVR/vis, it is anywhere from 550 to 1500 meters, deperending on a couple of factors, but how often does one really actually fly when the vis is below 1500 meters?
Yes, visibility is much easier. As long as the VIS/RVR is forecast to be well above 1500 m, I’d not give it more thought. (In most cases.)
Today FF decided to produce LDVA-LIMW route. From now on this is definitely my favorite one 
However, I’ll fly this one which I did manually
FF may be sponsored by some touristic syndicates :D
eddsPeter wrote:
You are right much more time for sightseeing.
You must admit that visiting Ljubljana, Trieste, Venice, Zurich and Milan on a way to final destination plus sightseeing of natural-gas drilling platforms in Northern Adriatics makes a nice tour.
I’ve had a play with FF (browser version) and it is still broken.
It presents an invalid route as “recommended”…
There is no option for VFR – IFR – VFR which is often done in Europe.
As before, it keeps resetting the min/max levels to 0 and “something very high” every time you run it.
Route finding is poor. For example, after some massaging (basically knowing in advance which routes work) it can produce this (via BILGO, 488nm)
but it won’t find it by itself; it finds only this (via no specified waypoint, 508nm)
It will find the BILGO route but only with 17000ft at LISMO, whereas this is not needed; this is the AR route (which avoids the extra bit LYD-DVR)
EGKA N0151F090 SFD DCT RIBGO DCT RINTI/N0151F110 B3 VATRI G40 ARSIL B13 SOMDA A6 DJL/N0152F100 A1 LISMO VFR LIMW
Taking another “standard test”, EGKA-LDLO, it produces this (831nm, but only with BILGO specified, otherwise it goes SW of Paris and much longer)
whereas the AR finds the usual (731nm)
It seems that it doesn’t do the most obvious thing: start off with a “shortest route through the maze” and then amend it according to Eurocontrol objections.
You are probably the only one ONLY using the FF browser version. Seriously.
So you are saying they have 2 copies of the code
It is possible but would totally amaze me because the routing code cannot possibly be contained in the browser. That is just a rendering app which communicates with (surely) the same server as the Ipad does. Same as what happens when you run the Autorouter on any client device.
I am just testing the route generator side of the product and have no use whatsoever for the latest version Ipad needed to run FF. I would buy one if I was actually using FF.
Snoopy wrote:
You are probably the only one ONLY using the FF browser version. Seriously.
Not true! Although not much you could do if that things supports only Apple! :)
