IFR Chart Choices

A long time has passed since Elroy Jeppesen first started drawing basic descriptions of ways to get into airports when the weather was down. Thankfully, aeronautical charting has evolved with technologies and operational needs. These days, the latest panel-mount avionics and handhelds coax us into the "paperless cockpit" realm, but a variety of factors havent eliminated dead-tree charts.The good news is we have a choice, even if its among only two basic publishers. Another piece of good news is we can put down one publishers chart and pick up the others without too much confusion. While there are qualitative differences between the two publishers, a major distinction is how they distribute updates. And despite a third-party company simplifying the process, theres still a price to pay when it comes to managing revisions.

Key Takeaways:

• Despite advances in cockpit technology, paper aeronautical charts remain necessary, with FAA/AeroNav and Jeppesen being the primary publishers, complemented by third-party options like Air Chart Systems.
• Publishers differ significantly in chart organization, included supplementary data, and especially their revision processes; FAA often provides less frequent full replacements, while Jeppesen offers more complex, frequent incremental updates.
• The article recommends a hybrid paper chart system: using Air Chart Systems' IFR Atlas for en route charts due to its simplicity and cost, combined with subscribing to FAA's approach plates, which are fully replaced every 56 days.

Key takeaways sponsored by Aviator Pro | Start Your Training ->

See a mistake? Contact us.