[mark]

Hi guys,

I've created this topic so anybody who has seen a draft of the new VFR maps can make their comments on it, posts any mistakes or suggest any improvements.

Look forward to reading your comments.

[GoGoGadgetGoAround]

Hi Mark,

Do you know where the new chart is in Weston? over by the control tower or do any of the schools have one?

[stovepipe]

Hi all
I've had a short glance at the one in Kilrush and found two items: Bagenalstown is mis-spelt and there is a gliding symbol marked at Kilbride in the Dublin Mountains, right where the Defence Forces have a firing range
regards
Stovepipe

[Papa8]

I will be submitting my opinions of the new VFR charts to the IAA as follows:

Topographical and Linear Features

a.) Railways (including single and multiple track symbols) are indistinctly marked
b.) Old railway lines were perhaps given prominence above what was the reality/existance of using them for navigation but I am not sure if not showing them at all is the way to go either.
c.) Roads have been entered from a driver's point of view rather than a pilots. We don't need multicolour roads representing different level of roads cluttering and 'busying up' our charts. Simple thicknesses (in perhaps a better colour than grey) of lines would be all that is needed for position fixes or for following along.
d.) Contours are too varied in colour and elevations below 500 feet would benefit from being whited out (like the current chart) As the location of many licensed aerodromes are below 500ft amsl they would stand out better. Also since we dont fly by the nap of the earth low level contours seem redundant
e.) spot heights are in a very small font (in fact font size of ground features is a overall problem. I also think it is unnecessary to include the names of so many spot heights.
f.) As a PPL pilot pointed out to me the chart has many P symbols to illustrate parking particularly in scenic areas. Of what use this is to a pilot is beyond me.
g.) Other linear features including rivers, canals and beaches either have low contrast ( a brighter blue for inland waterways was also a downfall of the current chart.) Beaches for navigational back-up of position are no longer on the new chart it seems. Of what use the black outlines around land that are scenic reserves or something like that is beyond me also.
h.) Small to mid-sized towns are also very indistinct generally which makes ETIs and overhead position reports that bit more 'heads down' than the current chart and in my opinion is a reduction in safety on the principles of as little heads down time as possible.

Aeronautical Information and Navigation

a.) Aerodromes (and runway alignment) are also virtually lost on the chart although removal of red hashing from restricted/danger areas and purple shading from CTRs should make obstacles in these areas easier to identify. I think runway surface was very easy to ascertain from the chart and this is now gone from the new chart.
b.) Consideration to low-light cockpit conditions (or dare I say night VFR) was accounted for in the current chart however I would have concerns that the camoflague contouring might reduce the contrast of purple and red-inked information. The thinking behind enlarging aerodrome information into speech bubble boxes is useful but would benefit from enhanced contrast still.
c.) Are there any racecourses marked as per the current chart. These are extremely useful where they exist.
d.) I didn't notice VOR compass roses and radio navigation is generally hidden on the chart. I overheard another pilot at my local airfield question if the Slieve Bloom mountains has a radio navigation aid as it wasn't marked on his IFR chart. And another pilot didn't know anything about a DME co-located with the Clonmel NDB. Also VFR cruising levels table should be retained.
e.) I will check again but I didn't immediately spot isogonals either.

These are just my initial "5-minute glance" impressions and if I have made any errors or people wish to refute anything I have said I would appreciate it especially since I haven't even soloed yet and so much interpretation of chart use (especially for navigation) is theoretically based. Generally I feel that the IAA have used low considerations for clarity and for the practical realities of both chart to ground and ground to chart navigation.

[tally1]

May i add my voice to P8's excellent review of the draft vfr maps. If you cant be bothered to reply to the IAA dept in question you can't expect anyone to listen to you when you have trouble navigating and you blame the map.

Overall from having had a quick look at them i must say that it appears to be a basic ordnance survey map with all the minute details that brings with it and some rather poor computer graphics superimposed on it. Why we need to know every boreen and stream with every contour line is beyond me. I understand that the new maps will be digitised so that hopefully we won't be waiting so long between each update but i have to say that at the moment the draft maps are vastly inferior in lay out,readability,and overall ease of use. Remeber these will be used while being bumped around in C152 with some poor student on a nav ex trying to extract relevant information from the contour lines,elevations,small roads,boreens, and other surplus to requirement information. For all its faults the current map is easy enough to use. I must say that the Jeppesen VFR maps are quite good and the lamination used is the way to go. The IAA(current) and Jeppe map are quite similiar and i would urge the map dept of the IAA to look at these and try and emulate them.

In a nutshell what is required in a map is high ground that visually stands out from the map,airports and airfields with the relevant info(freq,rwy length/orientation etc) clear landmarks and major towns,blue rivers and lakes ,major roads and train tracks,known windfarms/masts/man made obstacles say above 300/500ft above ground and also very important ATC airspace with vertical dimensions and associated freq's.All these must be easliy read with the correct information easily extracted visually by the user pilot.At the moment the old map does this much better than the currrent drafts but there is no doubt that the old map is due a major overhaul and update.However-and i dont want to sound like im criticising too much-the airspace lines, masts and speach boxes with the info in them appear to have been generated in microsoft windows and then dropped or superimposed on the ordnance survey map.


The map update is to be greatly welcomed and the consultation process is a very good idea so all you pilots out there that dont just rely on your garmin GPS make your feelings and contructive opinions known to the IAA at the email above.

[dara]

I had a look at it yesterday and i think its way too cluttered. It would be confusing for an experienced pilot let alone any new pilots!
The American Jepp charts are the way to go!

[Pilot]

Anyone know where the draft maps at Dublin Airport are being displayed?

P

[Nanolight]

i must say that it appears to be a basic ordnance survey map with all the minute details that brings with it and some rather poor computer graphics superimposed on it. Why we need to know every boreen and stream with every contour line is beyond me.

Totally agree with this. The 'resolution' of the contour lines, that is to say their level of detail from a measurement point of view, is unnecessarily high for aviation purposes.

The colour coding of roads is probably not necessary either.

Although in fairness, it is just a draft print and the lower image quality might be due to this.

[Bluebeard]

I think this new chart is a serious disimprovement from the old one .
Three items stand out on a cursory look at the south east one:
- The vital altitude limits on the various Class C sectors around Dublin seem to be either missing or so obscured by clutter as to be hidden;
- The choices of colour are very poor, airspace sectors are marked with colours used elsewhere on the map for geographical detail, and military areas are given much more prominence than essential controlled airspace;
- There is too much detail that will be of little or no interest to pilots, clogging up the space on the maps.

If the designers want to see what works for pilots, they should study the Jeppesen VFR maps of Ireland. These are not perfect by any means, but they are practically usable.

[mr crow]

.

[alphaLaura]

mr crow, I couldn't agree more.

[ceatach]

There was an email from the IAA a while ago. The email address to send the comments to is vfrcharts@iaa.ie and not www.vfrcharts@iaa.ie as originally posted.

If the consensus amongst -pilots- is that the old layout was better, then the more email comments to this extent the better if we wish to have it changed.. This thread is grand for spitting out opinions but dont forget to email the iaa.

[StephenM]

I saw it today in Sligo, I have to say the definition on it was poor at best, the lines were very jagged looking, not as clean as the current map.
Some of the airport data was a bit hard to read.
Also they left out some prominent windmills which I'll be emailing about.
But largely its a vast improvement at the same time, plenty of detail in terms of roads and towns/villages.

[Nanolight]

Mr Crow / alphaLaura: But is the point of the thing not to use maps that are twice as large in order to get more detail in though? Using the existing maps would defeat the puropse of the 1:250,000 scaling factor.

Having said that, just because the 250 maps afford greater levels of detail, doesn't mean every single laneway is a necessity. What is needed is an intelligent balance of the two.

And I STILL think they should show golf courses. Great landmarks they are!

[Flyer1]

[quote="Nanolight"]And I STILL think they should show golf courses. Great landmarks they are![/quote]

I concur !!!!!