ForeFlight Aero Charts

RalphInCA

RalphInCA

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
1,353
Location
McMinnville, OR
Display Name
Display name:
RalphInCA
ForeFlight users: How many of you are regularly using the new digitally rendered Aero Charts?

I am trying to force myself to use them more often, but seem to always go back to the good old sectionals.

Supposedly, these Aero Charts were a reimagining of how we got chart related data.

Are they a new paradigm, or just another idea that will eventually fade away?
 
I use Aero, a lot. Most of the time I have the Aero and another Chart on at the same time. Sectional and Aero both on at the same time is nice because when you zoom in you get detailed airport diagrams. Aero and Street or Aero and Aerial come in handy if you want to get detail on the ground and have the B's, C's and D's dispalyed at the same time. You do have to turn off the Sectionals and/or IFR charts to do this though. They always 'trump' Aerial and Street. It's not often I find that Aero, overlayed on the other Charts, gets to cluttered.
 
I use them more frequently than not. I like their uncluttered appearance for the long periods of cruise flight. And I like that the sectionals are still there to select when I want more information about the landmark I'm flying over.

I find that the feature is well executed and is not a fad.
 
I use an iPhone 6 in the yokemount for basic magenta-line-following chores. For that purpose the Aero charts are ideal, more like the display on the Garmin 496 I used to use. An iPad Mini rides in the map pocket, and I usually consult the Sectional display on that when I need more detail, without distracting the iPhone from its job.
 
This is unconfirmed, but I tend to think the Aero charts were a foundation item allowing them to bring us other enhancements that work better in a geo-ref environment. The Jepp Charts being one of these enhancements.

So while the original question here might be about the "visual usefulness" of Aero Charts, I think there is a lot of "in the background" functionality that goes with them than we know.
 
I still find myself going back to the sectionals for a lot of detail.
 
I am like luvflyin. I use sectionals with the aero charts turned on. That highlights different types of airspace so you’re less likely to miss something but when you zoom in you get the detail of the sectional
 
Mostly use the Aero and Low IFR charts even when fly VFR. I agree with the comments above, that Aero charts are the foundation of future. My guess we are only a few years away from Sectional not being available.
 
I've found errors in the past with Aero, specifically with the tops of airspace or bottom of a bravo. I'm sure its been fixed by now, but I only use the FAA charts to stay legal
 
Like some of the others, I almost never use the Aero charts alone. But I originally picked them up because I liked the enhancement they give to the sectionals and enroutes - just enough to be worth the small extra cost.
 
JC150 said:
I've found errors in the past with Aero, specifically with the tops of airspace or bottom of a bravo. I'm sure its been fixed by now, but I only use the FAA charts to stay legal
Click to expand...
Aero still doesnt give the whole picture where a Bravo is 'layered.' Like at San Diego. There is an area where it's SFC/33 and 47/100. From 3300 up to 4700 it's Class E. Theres another one thats 18/32 and 68/100. Aero just shows it as SFC/100 and 18/100.
 
RalphInCA said:
ForeFlight users: How many of you are regularly using the new digitally rendered Aero Charts?

I am trying to force myself to use them more often, but seem to always go back to the good old sectionals.

Supposedly, these Aero Charts were a reimagining of how we got chart related data.

Are they a new paradigm, or just another idea that will eventually fade away?
Click to expand...
This may be a Coke vs Pepsi kind of thing?

It took a few times to get use to but now I use the aero almost exclusively with the ability to reference the sectional or IFR charts if needed. I like the lack of clutter while keeping what I find useful. I fly IFR usually and faster (relatively speaking for GA in general) so that plays into it for me. Additional factors for my reasoning are that I have a 530/430 and MFD that all display different maps/info. If I was flying a cub at 500-1000agl I would probably use the sectional exclusively.

I like that they give people the option to choose their own flavor.
 
Sectionals for me.
I’ve been using them for so long that I can handle the high level of information comfortably.
Can’t see the value in streamlining the charts for everyday cross country travel.
 
If you want to see something disagreeable, try Jeppesen VFR charts on an iPad. While they are vector based, so that you can get more detail by zooming, they have very little detail at all. No terrain or obstacles to avoid -- not even tall mountains. No features for pilotage navigation, either. They look a lot like their IFR charts, actually, which are also pretty much useless.
 
I'm finding that I don't like looking at the sectional charts on-screen. The information is just harder for me to pick out than it is on paper and they seem too cluttered, so I use the AeroCharts with terrain displayed for most things.

I also think the terrain view is more realistic than the contour lines and shading that we get on sectionals.
 
a) how do you dl the Aero's?
b) how do you call them up, is it in the same charts menu?
 
I use them by default. But I fly CC IFR almost 100% of the time. I overlay the sectionals when trying to identify some small and/or private Airport during cruise (I have the feeling they are available on aero charts but...). I overly the low enroute sometimes when given airways but not always.

I like them a lot.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I use aero almost all the time viewed from just a large iPhone velcroed to a wide elastic leg strappy. But the hard copy sectional is always on board although it’s used so rarely it’s a challenge to remember to take it out of the baggage boxes on Robbies cause they can’t be opened safely in flight with people sitting on them...
 
Aero 95% of the time. Sectional only when I want to look up a detail not shown in the Aero charts. To me it’s just a cleaner more decluttered look.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I prefer Aeros, sectionals are only superior when talking for example about VFR reporting waypoints. I can imagine for VFR pilots sectionals would be the default choice.
 
George Mohr said:
Sectionals while planning, aero in flight. I hate reading upside down ;)
Click to expand...

midlifeflyer said:
Me too. That’s why I'm a North up guy on charts, although track up on panel GPS.
Click to expand...

I was going to go there, but you fired the first volley so I’ll keep my powder dry. Hahaha.

I find myself overlaying the aero on whatever chart I need, but turning it on and off constantly trying to decide if it’s worth the risk of it being at the wrong zoom level and missing something important. I don’t trust software engineers to decide what I need to see and what I don’t. Too many years of watching that sausage being made.

That said, I almost never turn off the regular old FAA charts. Too many years of experience using them and trusting them, all the way back to covering an entire cockpit with paper trying to learn how to retold the stupid things.

We’ll see how my iPad usage changes as we move to having a nice GPS in the panel. Watching a lot of videos of people doing that, it looks like they tend to sit on the regular charts also, and at a further zoomed out overview overall than I usually find myself looking at on the iPad when it’s the only chart on board. Well, I guess it’s still the only chart on board, but it’ll be more of a “refer to the chart or pull up a plate” thing I think, plus zoomed out for a weather overview ahead, etc.

And I try to get over my north up habit, but usually lose that mental battle. Never had any trouble using charts right side up and visualizing the airplane moving around on it. That’s my mental picture anyway, so track up has always been a mental jump for me to translate/project that back onto the north up moving map in my head.

But that’s all just me. YMMV.

Aero isn’t all that useful to me other than it seems to compliment the regular chart and highlight some things.
 
I'm a north up guy as well, and think it gives me much better situational awareness. When I'm North up, I can always answer the question "Where am I?" When I'm track-up, I tend to only know how far until my next turn and whether I am on my desired track.

Also, when I'm north-up, I can more readily visualize a heading pretty easily. I can look at my position and at a destination and see without measuring that it's "about 240" (or whatever it is). When I'm track-up, I can't do that as well.

The only thing I find useful about track-up is trying to match terrain features I see out the window to the map. If the GPS always puts my place on the map, then I don't need track up very much.
 
No aero charts. $25 a year? No thanks.

Up to the introduction of aeronautical charts all we read was how happy everyone was with the existing charts. They did, and currently do, get the job done.
 
GLMS_NC said:
No aero charts. $25 a year? No thanks.

Up to the introduction of aeronautical charts all we read was how happy everyone was with the existing charts. They did, and currently do, get the job done.
Click to expand...

We didn’t complain because we didn’t know any better. And anyway, I don’t think your comment is true. I’m sure plenty of people complained about the existing charts. They are cluttered, hard to read, full of information not really required by many pilots, not beginner friendly, etc. etc.
 
Regarding north up versus track up: in busy airspace, like Southern California, where you are frequently giving position reports, north up makes it easier to determine where you are in relation to airports or other landmarks.
 
RalphInCA said:
Regarding north up versus track up: in busy airspace, like Southern California, where you are frequently giving position reports, north up makes it easier to determine where you are in relation to airports or other landmarks.
Click to expand...

I find that true as well. I like north up on my iFly GPS, which shows sectionals and TACs, and track up on the PFD. Your head gets around melding the two orientations pretty quickly.
 
I can’t seem to get the hang of the Aero charts. They seem like a great idea, but I feel a better sense of where I am when I have a sectional chart in front of me instead. If I am IFR on airways, it is much easier to see upcoming altitude changes (MEA changes and MCAs) on the IFR low charts. When I’m planning a flight, I can’t use the Aero charts because they require you to tap on airways to find the MEA, they never show the GPS MEA for airways that have those, and they don’t show the OROCA or any elevation figures needed to plan a VFR flight, such as MEFs, terrain, and mountain passes.

The data behind the Aero charts would be useful for a feature I requested a while back, which is having the route advisor respect my plane’s service ceiling when selecting airways. I still think that features like that and some improvements to the Aero chart information display will allow for the Aero charts to become the primary chart for IFR use. They may already be useful in that capacity for flying in the flight levels. But they have a much longer way to go before they are useful as the primary chart for VFR use.
 
FF Aero is a software UI framework designed to maximize compatibility and performance first - a big challenge for them is to make sure their software performs on as many devices as possible. That being said, its' simplicity (at certain times) is appreciated.

For anyone who has a Jeppesen subscription, there is a third chart option: Jeppesen VFR. stoopid amount of money, for sure (required for my panel, I am lucky to have reimbursement). I happen to like it because it transitions well with my Jepp IFR charts and (I suspect) keeps my eyes more proficient. It also changes detail with zoom in a unique way that is sometimes great, sometimes crap.

For anyone flying frequently between DC and NY METRO area (count your lucky stars if you don't) the value of FF comes in changing the layers dependent on phase of flight. The juxtaposition of FF Aero, Sectionals and Jepp VFR are quite stark.
 
I use the Aeros some of the time, because I like track-up, but often find myself popping back to Sectional view for the detail, and because it is... comforting?
 
sardonux said:
FF Aero is a software UI framework designed to maximize compatibility and performance first - a big challenge for them is to make sure their software performs on as many devices as possible.
Click to expand...

Pffft. I’ve been through four iPads using their software. They don’t have to code anything efficiently, Apple takes care of killing old devices for them.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
I find that true as well. I like north up on my iFly GPS, which shows sectionals and TACs, and track up on the PFD. Your head gets around melding the two orientations pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

Same here. I use North Up on my iPad/ForeFlight and track up on my WAAS GPS.

I look at the WAAS like I do when driving a car or flying a Radial; I dont want to have to "reverse sense," I want to know if I'm left or right of course and if my next turn is going to be to the left or the right and what relative bearing it is. I use my iPad/ForeFlight for big picture overview of my flight, where I actually am located and what magnetic bearings I need for my next turn. They serve 2 different purposes for me and I find I dont even notice the different orientations. In fact, I only recently started flying with my iPad and GPS tracking on my iPad so to me, the iPad is just the paper chart replacement which I normally held north-up anyway. Added benefit as noted already, no need to try and read stuff upside down with North Up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top