A/FD gets a new name

It's about damn time.

I can't tell you the last time I thought to myself "You know what aviation needs? ONE MORE EFFING ACRONYM TO REMEMBER."
 
More mindless compliance with ICAO.
 
jordane93 said:
What's wrong with the current name?
Click to expand...
It's not the same as other countries.

Amusingly now it is the Chart Supplement and contains the AF/D. Before it was the AF/D and contained the chart supplement.
Some of us are old enough to remember the AF/D being part of the Airman's Information Manual.
 
flyingron said:
It's not the same as other countries.

Amusingly now it is the Chart Supplement and contains the AF/D. Before it was the AF/D and contained the chart supplement.
Some of us are old enough to remember the AF/D being part of the Airman's Information Manual.
Click to expand...

And we're not the same as other countries when it comes to quite a few things, seem to have been working just fine for quite some time. I don't recall hearing about any international flights which were canceled due to the AFD
 
Last edited:
I didn't say it was a good idea, I just stated that was the reason (the announcement pretty much says as much).
 
So so sick of the US capitulating to everyone else. I am pretty sure we will never stand up to anyone about anything again. Sad.
 
EdFred said:
So so sick of the US capitulating to everyone else. I am pretty sure we will never stand up to anyone about anything again. Sad.
Click to expand...

What the HELL is wrong with it? You can't handle a simple name change? Really?

It's a "capitulation?" Really?

This is baffling. I would hope everyone on this board is smart enough to understand something like this. Trivial. Really trivial. Jeez, pick your battles. An expansion of Class A airspace would be a significant "capitulation" to ICAO. This is nothing. Really nothing.
 
Line up and wait, english proficient, lets privatize/user fee the airspace, etc...

If you love Europe so much, go there. Don't turn us into it.
 
EdFred said:
Line up and wait, english proficient, lets privatize/user fee the airspace, etc...

If you love Europe so much, go there. Don't turn us into it.
Click to expand...


Bingo!

Just like a poorly behaving child, you correct them early on when they make a small mistake, you don't wait till the kid is 17 and joining a gang


There are many things in Europe we should copy, mainly style and cuisine, but for gods sakes not their crappy aviation system
 
Many here look at it from the perspective of only flying in one country, this one. But for those who fly internationally, the harmonization could be seen as a good thing. In fact it could also be seen as a good thing even if you never leave the country, in that pilots from other countries might have a better clue as to what's going on. And for people for people who think we are "capitulating", remember that the ICAO language is English. If your native tongue is something else you need to learn it to be able to fly in ICAO countries other than those which speak the same language.
 
EdFred said:
Line up and wait, english proficient, lets privatize/user fee the airspace, etc...

If you love Europe so much, go there. Don't turn us into it.
Click to expand...

Got many windmills over there?

Jeez. This is easy. I can only imagine your head exploding if something really difficult comes up. Dang.

Just because ICAO might do something does not make it automatically bad. Some tiny bit of thought is required. Some things are trivial. Like this. Some other things might have more substance. Not LUAW, not English proficient. Maybe privatization. Gotta engage the brain, rather than reflex. I would hope pilots like us are smarter than that.
 
Not a big thing in the scheme of things.
 
We also had to change part 61 in order to bend over for Europe.
 
MAKG1 said:
Got many windmills over there?

Jeez. This is easy. I can only imagine your head exploding if something really difficult comes up. Dang.

Just because ICAO might do something does not make it automatically bad. Some tiny bit of thought is required. Some things are trivial. Like this. Some other things might have more substance. Not LUAW, not English proficient. Maybe privatization. Gotta engage the brain, rather than reflex. I would hope pilots like us are smarter than that.
Click to expand...

<brain engaged> He and others are pointing out that this is ONE MORE example of change for change's sake in service of ICAO. I think "chart supplement" is less descriptive of the book's contents than the old name - Airport/Facility Directory. So why did they change it? ICAO. End of the world? No one said it was. Another example of pointless changes? Absolutely.

Another... the gawdawful ICAO flight plan. That is a great example of the garbage we get from ICAO. Confusing, too long, excessively coded, seemingly overlapping codes, etc. It should have been so much simpler.
 
I had a hard time with ADF and AFD. Now that they are both gone, life gets easier.
 
My biggest problem was sticking the slash in the wrong place (it's the A/FD not the AF/D) :)
 
EdFred said:
We also had to change part 61 in order to bend over for Europe.
Click to expand...
It's all to ready us for the upcoming reassimilation into the UK. They want us back!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
petrolero said:
I think "chart supplement" is less descriptive of the book's contents than the old name - Airport/Facility Directory.
Click to expand...
"Airport/Facility Directory" is more descriptive of one section of the document. And in fact the name is being retained for that section.

The name is not at all accurate with regard to other sections of the document--Preferred IFR Routes, Special Notices, Aeronautical Chart Bulletin, etc. So changing the name of the overall document is a welcome step toward greater clarity. And if the ICAO led the way on this, so much the better for the ICAO.
 
what-is-in-a-name.jpg


lighten%20up%20francis_0.png
 
EdFred said:
Line up and wait, english proficient, lets privatize/user fee the airspace, etc...

If you love Europe so much, go there. Don't turn us into it.
Click to expand...
Let's not forget what happened to TCAs, airport traffic areas, control zones, terminal forecasts that made sense (mist, bah!) and second officer [EDIT: first officer ]type ratings.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
My knee-jerk reaction was that this was a stupid move, as "Chart Supplement" is not a very descriptive term, but I am comforted that A/FD will still be "a thing", just part of the larger book; it seems to make sense:

Airport/Facility Directory will still refer to the front section of the books where the airports, NAVAIDs, and weather devices are listed. Chart Supplement will refer to the entire volume.
Click to expand...
 
acrophile said:
"Airport/Facility Directory" is more descriptive of one section of the document. And in fact the name is being retained for that section.

The name is not at all accurate with regard to other sections of the document--Preferred IFR Routes, Special Notices, Aeronautical Chart Bulletin, etc. So changing the name of the overall document is a welcome step toward greater clarity. And if the ICAO led the way on this, so much the better for the ICAO.
Click to expand...

It is descriptive of the *by far* biggest and most important part of the book. Do you want the title to be a table of contents? "Chart supplement" almost sounds like it has something to do with charts, like a legend or an AC or something, but mostly it doesn't.

In the end, I will use FF and not worry about it.
 
Wow I didn't know people were gonna get so worked up over this. Especially since it has absolutely nothing to do with ICAO. Just means you are gonna get some military stuff put in there such as UHF frequencies, military airfields, etc.

"These specifications provide basic criteria and guidance for the production of the United States Government Flight Information Publication Chart Supplements. The Chart Supplement is designed to satisfy validated Department of Defence (DoD) and civil user requirements for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and Visual Flight Rules (VFR) flight data. It is distributed and used as a companion product to US Government Enroute and VFR Charts and/or the Flight Information Handbook (FIH). It is used by DoD aircrews and civil pilots planning for and engaging in all phases of air navigation. This specification outlines items that shall be published in the supplement. Other than the directory legend, selected notices, ARTCC, FSS/RCO, routes and supplemental communications content of the supplement will be limited to data required for the specific geographic areas covered by the supplement."

Yeah I know it isn't a big deal, but I've seen enough worthless threads, I figure one more from me won't hurt.

In the military we don't use the A/FD, we use the "Supplements." My guess is they are getting rid of the military ones. Which were in one thick book about twice as thick as an A/FD and we are gonna have to start carrying these around.
 
dmspilot said:
My knee-jerk reaction was that this was a stupid move, as "Chart Supplement" is not a very descriptive term, but I am comforted that A/FD will still be "a thing", just part of the larger book; it seems to make sense:
Click to expand...

I like "supplement". Supplements like Geritol help you stay sharp enough to come up with renaming things as being the most important task of the day, when warming an FAA desk for 30 years. Elderly bureaucrats need good supplements. LOL
 
I guess "green book" is right out. If they start using that term, the FAA will immediately put a white cover on it.
 
flyingron said:
I guess "green book" is right out. If they start using that term, the FAA will immediately put a white cover on it.
Click to expand...
Delta pilots who were part of the Nothwest acquisition of North Central would be offended by the term "green book".
 
EdFred said:
So so sick of the US capitulating to everyone else. I am pretty sure we will never stand up to anyone about anything again. Sad.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have to go with EdFred on this one. Here's the thing. Who developed aviation? Who set the standards? Who produced the technology? We did! Every other country copied our procedures and uses mostly our equipment and aircraft. They can follow our lead, dammit. Europe is just acting like a spoiled stepchild that has to have something his way just so he can feel involved. You know, the kind of kid that walks away from athletic events with a "participation" award.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Yeah, I have to go with EdFred on this one. Here's the thing. Who developed aviation? Who set the standards? Who produced the technology? We did! Every other country copied our procedures and uses mostly our equipment and aircraft. They can follow our lead, dammit.
Click to expand...
It's strange to see people enact a tribal tirade over an imaginary challenge to their team's supremacy. As Gucci Pilot pointed out, this change had nothing to do with ICAO compliance. And even if it did, the change is a good idea, as it makes the nomenclature more accurately descriptive (something the FAA has been desperately bad at).

But no matter. If you're determined enough to find a casus belli, you'll see one wherever you look. Even here.

And by the way, how on earth can you claim that "we" developed aviation? Were you a co-inventor? No; you merely happened to be born within a few thousand kilometers of someone who made critical contributions to the invention. Yet you imagine you somehow share credit for the invention (more than a citizen of a different nation does).

Also, by the way, Europeans invented ailerons decades before the Wright brothers flew. The Wrights chose instead to use the dead-end wing-warp technology. More generally, people on other continents had developed human flight, powered heavier-than-air flight, controlled flight, and long-distance flight well before the Wright brothers flew. The Wright brothers did accomplish the first controlled, powered, sustained heavier-than-air flight, which was a significant advance. But the claim that everyone else just copied the US on aviation is a parochial fantasy.
 
That's why the rest of the world is such a leader in training pilots, and all the Americans go overseas to get training and speak bad German/Spanish/Chinese/Korean on their airwaves.

America, dead last in aviation.
 
EdFred said:
America, dead last in aviation.
Click to expand...
Huh? When someone points out "America didn't invent everything", do you really perceive that as "America is dead last"?
 
Last edited:
Sac Arrow said:
Yeah, I have to go with EdFred on this one. Here's the thing. Who developed aviation? Who set the standards? Who produced the technology? We did! Every other country copied our procedures and uses mostly our equipment and aircraft. They can follow our lead, dammit. Europe is just acting like a spoiled stepchild that has to have something his way just so he can feel involved. You know, the kind of kid that walks away from athletic events with a "participation" award.
Click to expand...

Umm, no.

The glider was invented by a German. So was the internal combustion engine. Early aerodynamics was English. The French were far ahead of the Americans in the early days, especially in military aviation during World War I. The earliest practical commercially sold aircraft was French. The airship was German, the balloon French. The jet engine was English. So was the jet airliner.

Truly silly tribalism. Aviation is not exclusively American, and never has been.

Some of you guys really have to deal with the issue that there are other parts of the world.
 
Oh I think those are ridiculous arguments. I'll stick with my silly tribalism. Sure, we can go back to Otto Lilienthal, or for that matter Leonardo Davinci, or hell, even Icarus (mythological characters have about the same amount of relevance.) The point being modern aviation as we know it, the avionics, the navigation systems, electronics, procedures, standards, ad nauseum, have overwhelmingly been developed in the United States. Sure, other countries have made contributions, but they are relatively small by comparison.

There are other parts of the world? (I struggle with the concept of other parts of the country!)
 
Sac Arrow said:
Oh I think those are ridiculous arguments. I'll stick with my silly tribalism. Sure, we can go back to Otto Lilienthal, or for that matter Leonardo Davinci, or hell, even Icarus (mythological characters have about the same amount of relevance.) The point being modern aviation as we know it, the avionics, the navigation systems, electronics, procedures, standards, ad nauseum, have overwhelmingly been developed in the United States. Sure, other countries have made contributions, but they are relatively small by comparison.

There are other parts of the world? (I struggle with the concept of other parts of the country!)
Click to expand...

Avionics? The gyro was invented by a German. The airspeed indicator was French. The "sensitive altimeter" was invented by a German immigrant to the US. Navigation? The chart was invented by the Dutch. Procedures and standards were adopted by ICAN before any US procedures or any US aviation authority existed; the first example was radiotelecommunications in 1912.

Sorry, it's just wrong. Some things were invented in the US, but it's incredibly wrong to say aviation is an American invention. Aside from some isolated experiments, the US was not interested in aviation in a significant way until World War I. This was not true in Europe.
 
Face it Americans suck at everything. We couldn't even invent fire fercrissakes!

All hail Europe!
 
EdFred said:
Face it Americans suck at everything. We couldn't even invent fire fercrissakes!

All hail Europe!
Click to expand...

Relax! It's just the title of a book. A book that is seldom bought nowadays. It's not worth blowing a gasket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top