WAC won't have obstructions <500'

[gprellwitz]

Just saw this today. Be careful if you were planning to rely only on the WAC for any low-altitude flights!

World Aeronautical Charts (WAC) (1:1,000,000 scale) will only show obstructions that are 500’ Above Ground Level (AGL) or taller. Obstacles 499’ AGL or less will no longer be depicted on these charts. WAC CH-25 will be the first chart to reflect this specification change. Eventually all WACs will be revised. The final WAC to be published with this change will be CJ-27 on April 8, 2009.

This change in minimum charted obstacle height depiction on WACs was necessary due to the increase of aeronautical information. Over time, as more and more information is added, chart clutter becomes a concern that affects chart readability. Military, commercial and general aviation groups were consulted prior to this change and agreed that this revision was necessary for chart usability.

VFR Sectional (1:500,000 scale) and Terminal Area Charts (1:250,000 scale) will not be affected by this specification change. These charts will continue to depict obstructions of 200’ AGL and higher.

 

[KennyFlys]

Just saw this today. Be careful if you were planning to rely only on the WAC for any low-altitude flights!

I've come across only a couple pilots who use WACs. How frequent is their use? I can't recall the last time I've looked at one beyond a guide of how they cover the US.

I'd imagine the change would make them less cluttered but at what cost? Then again, there's 91.119 to be considered.

 

[gprellwitz]

I've come across only a couple pilots who use WACs. How frequent is their use? I can't recall the last time I've looked at one beyond a guide of how they cover the US.

I'd imagine the change would make them less cluttered but at what cost? Then again, there's 91.119 to be considered.

I sometimes use them if I'm only going to be transiting an area as opposed to basing there for a while. OTOH, I don't use them in mountainous terrain. So If I'm doing Chicago to Florida, for example, I'll likely use a WAC.

 

[tlglenn]

I've used a WAC only in Mexico.

 

[sba55]

I use WACs exclusively. Not that I fly that much VFR, but when I do, I find that they're much easier to handle than sectionals and they contain all the information I need. Bought my last sectional 1 year ago.

Less clutter is great. I can't even remember the last time I looked on a chart for obstructions.

Felix

 

[ScottM]

I hardly ever use WACS but when I do I am usually up pretty high to begin with. Well at least higher than when I use sectionals and TACs

 

[Graueradler]

They make good wallpaper for flight planning rooms

 

[mikea]

If you're planning on flying below 500 feet AGL and not near an airport....

I wouldn't trust even a TAC either.

 

[gismo]

I use WACs exclusively. Not that I fly that much VFR, but when I do, I find that they're much easier to handle than sectionals and they contain all the information I need. Bought my last sectional 1 year ago.

Less clutter is great. I can't even remember the last time I looked on a chart for obstructions.

Felix

When Howie Keefe's Airchart Systems offered bound sectionals I switched from the WACs he's always had. But about the only time I use them is if I'm going to fly visually/locally around an airport when I'm not very familiar with the area. I find the Airchart books very handy for this kind of use but they're pretty useless for flight planning.

 

[sba55]

When Howie Keefe's Airchart Systems offered bound sectionals I switched from the WACs he's always had. But about the only time I use them is if I'm going to fly visually/locally around an airport when I'm not very familiar with the area. I find the Airchart books very handy for this kind of use but they're pretty useless for flight planning.

True, if you're down low and in an area that's unfamiliar, they make a lot of sense. But when you're always at 10,000' or above, it's a different story...the Airchart system is excellent.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I gave up WACs in 1989 when I realized that the reason I was having such difficulty navigating is that the WAC was missing several towns in Kansas.

I'm guessing that wouldn't have been a recent change, either

I don't fly below 500 AGL, but I fly low enough that I can't fly directly over a 499' obstruction legally. I'm sticking with sectionals.

I tried the Air Chart systems one year, but they don't copy the colors exactly...I found I was spending too much heads-down time trying to determine if that was a river or a road I was looking for. Not good.

Fly safe!

David