Update:
It appears that Skydemon merges airspace above 4000ft, as a default setting.
This explains that thick line in the start of this thread, which otherwise doesn't correspond to the published airspace chart.
It appears that Skydemon merges airspace above 4000ft, as a default setting.
Did you find this in the SD documentation? As far as I can tell, the thick line only appears in Flying mode and I thought it appears at or near your current altitude to show you where you will enter/leave CAS....thus possibly joining several boundaries if appropriate....and I figured that explained your initial observation...even if you thought it shouldn't behave that way!
Like many others, I generally like Skydemon a lot. Potentially, in combination with an iPad, it could allow pilots to substitute their 1:500.000 VFR charts for the entire european airspace. (...which, by the way, would be very handy as Jeppesen is apparently phasing out their paper VFR/GPS charts...)
However, I have noticed certain serious shortcomings and thus "errors" on their charts. This makes me shy away from it, at least for the time.
The most striking case is Italy. Italy, as many of you know, has a very complex airspace structure, and as VFR flyer, it is essential to really understand it and to have precise charts, during preflight as well as in flight.
One oddity of the italian airpace structure is their TMAs, particularly Milan and Rome. These, unfortunately, are displayed completely "wrong" in SD. (BTW, the same is true for ANP, but I wouldn't know who would ever seriously consider to substitute their classic VFR maps with just ANP, which, as opposed to SD, is basically an unsupported product nowadays).
Why? I'll try to explain. According to the italian AIP, each TMA has its own lower limit. In the case of Milan for example, it is 2500 feet MSL or 1500 feet AGL (whichever is higher).
In addition though, these TMAs have what the italian airspace designers called "VFR sectors". This merely means that in certain areas within the lateral limits of the TMA, the actual lower limit differs from the "general" lower limit as above. This is mostly due to terrain. One example is the area north of Bergamo, where, as a matter of rising terrain, the lower limit of the controlled airspace increases gradually. All this however is not shown in SD!
Now you may ask: "why didn't the italians simply define that the TMA has varying lower limits, supply the relative information and be done with it?" Nobody really knows. But what they did is what I described above. The problem is: in the AIP, they merely provide the coordinates of the TMA as a whole. For the VFR sectors, they only refer to a map which show them; but they do not provide their coordinates in text form.
And this is where the problem starts for products like SD, because "graphical" information cannot be easily parsed nor can it be accurately transferred from national AIPs into their database.
Skydemon btw is fully aware of the problem, but they still refuse to do anything about it, claiming that the effort of extrapolating coordinates from maps wouldn't yield sufficiently accurate information. I also understand that this is a workload issue (even though they do not admit it); it would be impossible to continually monitor (by means of human beings) all AIRAC changes of all european countries so I do understand them to a certain degree.
But this doesn't help us pilots a lot. Fact is that due to massive errors in the depiction of the huge Milan and Rome TMAs, Skydemon remains practically unusable for flying in Italy. This as a warning to everyone who is considering to subsitute their yearly VFR chart purchases with a purchase of SD.
BTW, the problems don't stop with Italy. In France, there is a similar problem: apparently, the coordinates of all natural parks (which are considered as "prohibited") are not provided (in text form) in the AIP, thus they are not depicted in Skydemon. There is a long list of chart issues on the SD forum. See here.
This shall not be intended as SD-bashing. Again, I think it's a very neat product with a very knowledgable team behind it. But unfortunately, as a matter of fact, there are still some serious shortcomings, which don't currently warrant a complete change from paper charts to SD alone.
Interesting post. This is why I always buy local paper charts for any area or country I fly in, as well as use SD and cross-reference the two.
I gave up purchasing UK CAA charts completely after starting to use SD. It saves me cash, helps pay for the subscription, and gives me constantly updated charts which are simple to interpret and are custom designed by me for each flight.
Nobody has ever managed to produce an error-free flight planning program, so it doesn't suprise me that Skydemon has significant errors once one goes outside the standard UK burger-run area.
The database will be only as good as how many pilots exercise it and complain to the vendor who in this case will be presumed to want it reported in English.
which don't currently warrant a complete change from paper charts to SD alone.
If you did change, what about the backup for the Ipad packing up?
It is only a piece of consumer-grade electronics after all. Apple stuff is at the upper end of the consumer grade quality spectrum but anybody who thinks it is 100% reliable ought to visit their local Apple shop and see the long queue of people carrying various duff products. The people in that queue are not at all complimentary about it, given the prices they paid.
We have an Ipad2 and an Iphone4 and both have had to be replaced.
I know we've done this to death here already but the backup strategies people seem to use tend to involve carrying an Iphone and relying on mobile internet to sync the stuff, but mobile internet doesn't always work. Much of the UK countryside has no GSM signal, and roaming abroad occasionally fails.
it would be impossible to continually monitor (by means of human beings) all AIRAC changes of all european countries
Well, any flight planning software vendor has to do exactly that for a proportion of the data. Only some is machine readable. The rest has to be manually monitored.
One could argue that Italy's failure to provide coordinates renders the airspace information invalid.
The next step for EASA/EU could be to take over airspace design and unify it across Europe. SERA is a small step in that direction. Italy clearly is not up to the task, their airspace design is nonsensical and dangerous (low flying).
If you did change, what about the backup for the Ipad packing up?
Most people have a mobile phone and SkyDemon is available for both Android and iOS. I have it on the iPad and Android phone. SkyDemon has a good interface to download data before the flight. No need for internet on the road. That is a bulletproof backup.
it would be impossible to continually monitor (by means of human beings) all AIRAC changes of all european countries<
Peter this is exactly the purpose of the EAD through Data Modelling and coordination with Data Providers EAD
The AIP is the only legal source.
As you maybe know we have in Europe the EAD which contains Aeronautical Data in AIXM format in addition to all the AIP's in Pdf format. The problem is that not all States provide clear VFR data in the AIP some states have a separate VFR AIP etc..
We are all suffering in Europe from the Chicago convention of 1944. ICAO Annex 15 is good but it doesn't cover everything ..as a result different implementation throughout Europe
In 2014 ADQ becomes into force in Europe and it's all about Aeronautical Data Quality. Sky Demon, Jeppesen etc...are called in ADQ next intended users and should fall under ADQ-2 which is under development. There is still a lot of work to be done for Data Harmonization in Europe and I believe this is only possible mainly trough the efforts organized by eurocontrol
The problem with the VFR sectors in those TMA's are that they are not ICAO standard and therefore not readable for any of the databases normal flight planners are done with.
If I get it correctly they are Airspace A, yet VFR is allowed in them.. That is something which no flight planner will properly represent. Neither should it. "A" is "A", period. If Italy allows VFR in those sectors, then they need to change the airspace classification to correspond to ICAO!
If I read the charts correctly (And yes, Pocket FMS has the VFR Sectors correctly labled and included) then the "ruling" airspace is the TMA of Milan or Rome, which as a lower limit of 2500 ft AMSL or 1500 FT AGL which ever is higher. The WHOLE TMA is class A.
Then the VFR Sectors are shown inside them, stating "VFR Sector xxx, max alt for VFR flight is FL125". And they indicate that Milano FIS needs to be contacted if you want to fly inside that area.
SO:
We have VFR in class A airspace "controlled" by a FIS.
In short: This is NOT according to ICAO, nor is it according to EASA and therefore illegal.
If Italy were finally going to scrap the blanket "A" airspace and do what almost ALL other countries in Europe do namely to declare the TMA airspace C and D and the VFR sectors E or D with an appropriate control unit, then we'd end up with a proper airspace a normal person can understand.
And no, the terrain argument does not buy either: Because per definition they state that Airspace G is below 2000 ft AMSL or 1500 ft AGL, which does cover terrain in most cases, certainly if the interpretation is such that the 1500 ft AGL are respective to the obstacles around. Again, to have Airspace A in such an area is doing mostly one bit: It calls for violations on a massive scale. What would be reasonable IF they have to have A: Make its lower limit 500 ft below the lowest IFR MEA in the area rather than expect pilots to fly "ground attack profiles" to maintain airspace G.
Let's go back to basics.
Do the Jepp VFR/GPS charts show the Italian airspace correctly?
