Products 1 – 10 of 15 Buy Now · Navtech Europe Supplement. AERAD Buy Now · Navtech Flight Guide Poland to Urals, & to SE Europe to Greece &. AERAD. If you are a UK-based aviator you will know about Aerad, and you will also know about Jeppesen. If you are based anywhere else in the world you will know. In addition to Aerad’s range of Flight Guide Supplements a larger range of accessories have been brought out to complement the main guides. £ (Non- VAT.

Author: Samunris Zolomuro
Country: Russian Federation
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Love
Published (Last): 26 February 2012
Pages: 454
PDF File Size: 9.19 Mb
ePub File Size: 1.4 Mb
ISBN: 361-3-60436-342-6
Downloads: 58700
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kigalrajas

What has happened to the charts. When did all this change. Where has aerad gone. Where have all the notes gone at the bottom of the charts. What are these busts heights on the SIDs now?

Half the print is unreadable even in my state ssupplement life. Help, can anyone help an old codger and point them in the right direction as to where the new legend is. I couldn’t find one on board.

It looks like a Jeppesen chart, uspplement help us. I’ve also noticed CAT A minima missing. Not good for the boys in the thick of it.: Your Company should have warned you about this. A booklet explaining changes is linked below: To quote their intro splurge in the info booklet my company gave out to us about a month ago; “The focus of our development has been to create a modern chart specification, taking into consideration recent research and our vast experience as a ibformation maker.

We believe we have taken a step into the future, bringing you the most modern and easy to use aeronautical chart product in the market. Our main objective has been to create a product that is clear and precise, making information dupplement to find. Also the takeoff minimas looks jeppesen style now: Can’t even recognise my home base anymore.

Meddling for the sake of bureaucracy. I’d hate to have to use it in a hurry! What “research” – no one’s asked ME!!!

Navtech (AERAD) UK Touring Guide

They’ve also named the airfields after their name in the local lingo rather than English, so you’d better be able to remember you’re diverting to Wien and not Vienna when the cockpit fills up with smoke.: We believe we have taken a step into the future usually accompany a premium rate phone number for customer support.: I must admit that I find them easier to read.

They are less haphazard than the old one, with the SSA in one place rather than in the corners or in a rose. The ILS freq are also easier to find. Although I have only recently moved from the Jepps.

informatioon In my coy nobody really liked the aerads. Have to agree about the Wein issue, would it be too difficult to have both names? Ready to have my head shot off Spunky, You can’t see the ILS frequency and ident unless you’re very young! We, over 50s need nice big numbering, lettering.

The previous chart was just fine. The idiot that thought these up, has never been in a cockpit that’s for sure! I’ve just had a look at the powerpoint presentation, not seen a real chart yet, but there are some improvements over current Aerad charts. Names of places are in local language – disaster!


I have no idea what a load of places are called in their own language – how do I find them? I’m sure I’ll come across more when I actually use them. All the staff in Stockholm think they are more like Aerad and vice versa. The new format is also compatible with the navigation database and will make it possible to meet the quality and traceability standards expected from Eurocontrol. To address some of the main criticisms above: Aerad UK was the only supplier that attempted to anglicize the names.

This always caused overseas customers considerable difficulty.

Navtech (AERAD) UK Touring Guide

Try telling an Italian airline that its capital city is Rome. Lets call it globalisation. Altitude – The altitude information is werad better. The text size is greater than either previous format and they actually state the altitude limitation. The inverse presentation of the altitude bust height is retained.

Call it safety and employment continuity come to that. It is retained for those airlines which prefer this format. Terrain contours with spot heights is an option and is much easier to produce by the way because it is supplied in the AIP. They read this column so provide feedback to Patrick. Well I used them for the first time today and they are pretty abysmal, took me 5 minutes to locate the ILS morse ident, took another 5 minutes to find the airfield elevation, the minima’s at the bottom are just bloody confusing, listing for the airfields we went to today anyway CAT III minima’s first.

There’s too much clutter in the vertical profiles of the approach charts. The chart is rather disjointed in places and is certainly a small step backwards for now. What’s with the chart numbers now? How much consultation was taken with the people who actually use these things? As a side note a quick glance at the PDF file posted above shows charts that are slightly more eligible than the two I had to read today, so certainly alot of variation dependent on the airfield being visited.

On a positive note the ground pages are more concise. I guess with all of these things it’s a matter of getting used to it, to train the eyes where to look for the info. Since the charts are tailored to specific airlines, why not tailor the names at the top of the charts as well? If you put the names in English, then they are all there in a standard ICAO language, if you put them in their own language, that’s going away from standard by utilising many different languages.

Aerad Flight Guides + Charts & Folders. Books 1,2,5,6,7

Non English speakers have to learn English for the notes, by your argument we should put them all in the local language. Its a dupplement backwards. Its like calling East Midlands, “Nottingham”, no one can find it, which is why it changed its name back to East Midlands. No it is not, at least as far as I am concerned.

Looking at the chart quickly, I cannot see it reliably enough.

Aerad Flight Information Supplement

A line above or below indicates it very well, text beforehand can lead to misreading and takes longer to assimilate. Setting the block altitude in black being retained is a good glight. If you have “inbetween” altitudes you could add a similar system to the new charts, but to take away the hard line is a step in the wrong direction.


It is retained for those airlines which prefer this format Green is hard to see against black in the lighting of cockpits in the dark. Also, it should tell us that in the presentation. Why can’t we retain the lines on the altitudes if we prefer that presentation?

So we are just ignored instead? Who are the charts for, the maker or the user? You sure about that? I did my first trip with these charts last week from Prestwick. On the old charts it had a note which explained about North Atlantic departures and if you had to get the oceanic clearance before departing depending on entry point.

No mention of this at all. Are they being like Gordon Brown, IE we know better than you plebs so get used to it. If they are NAVTECH much better on the ground but hate any of the airbourne plates they are so difficult to understand and full of shall we say “differing” information from the origional Aerad plates, and I am used to using both Aerad and Jepps! Navtech based in Waterloo, Canada is the aefad of the company. Aerad was used as the brand name even after the company was sold by BA in aerav mid 90’s.

Slightly off topic here but correct me if i’m wrong: However an operator must choose one or the other and cannot cherry pick between Jar-Ops filght and Eu-Ops minima. For this reason my airline has chosen to stay with Jar-Ops until Aerad have finished introducing the Aerochart standard and has issued guidance that the EU-Ops minima cannot be used. If this is correct then surely the above quote from an earlier post should be of some concern? With the fairly suppllement caveat that I have yet use them in a darkened cockpit I actually rather like them and would say with a little tweaking large character font in some places for instance that they are an improvement on the old charts but still nothing like as good as the original spec.

Aerad charts which were the best and clearest I have used. Used both and think Aerad charts are for flying schools and girls: Can anyone enlighten me as to what aircraft approach catergory DL is? Could it be a “large” Cat D ac or a “long body” Cat D ac, although I thought aircraft approach categories were purely speed based at max landing wt.

We had the booklet issued to every pilot in the company, with reminders to study it before the implementation date.

Even with that preparation, when I first had to use the new plates, they were an absolute horror. Infromation with that local knowledge, I found the plates almost unusable. An example was elevation: Some of the terrain notes for the missed approach instructions on how to avoid high ground if you cannot maintain the climb gradient appear to have been removed.

Another issue is renaming the pages. The old alphanumeric page numbers were easy to deal with in the flight deck- giving them numerical page IDs only is a nice neat solution, like giving us rows of identical switches glight controls.