Out of date charts on Airnav

Viperdoc writes:

Thanks. I was partial to the Airnav site, since it also gave info on FBO's,
rental cars, nearby restaurants, etc., as well as the charts.

Wasn't too happy with AOPA, since it took too much navigating to get the
charts. Airnav was pretty easy.

Will go to NACO now for the latest.

I suspect the AirNav stuff is identical to the "real" charts, and the
disclaimer is mainly a legal requirement. The same holds true for
other sites such as SkyVector. That way, if you use information from
these sites, and if by unfortunate chance it happens to contain any
kind of error, and you kill yourself in a plane as a result, it's your
fault, not the fault of the sites in question. But in practice, it's
the same information in the same format.

There are times when I think the obsession with using only
"authorized" and "certified" charts is a bit pathological. I can
understand avoiding outdated charts, but when you can get a scan of a
current chart online, where's the risk in using it? Are details on
the charge going to be mystically mutated by the simple act of
scanning them?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I suspect the AirNav stuff is identical to the "real" charts,

They *are* the real charts. Airnav links to the NACO website for the
PDF files. They were just lagged a bit in updating the links to the
updated cycle on NACO during the last few days.

Whether a chart is current or not has *nothing* to do with the dates
printed on the edge of NACO chart. Each chart has a serial number
printed at the lower left hand.
(http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0613/00142IL16R.PDF for example, has
"Amdt20 06103"). It means the chart is last revisioned on the 130th
day of 2006. As long as the most recent chart on NACO has the same
serial number you chart is still current. It doesn't matter if you
printed it out 3 years ago.

Agreed. I always use the FAA site. Some of the other sites aren't current,
especial near the end of the cycle.

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 09:37:57 -0600, "Stan Prevost" wrote:

I don't see how it could be much easier than the FAA site
http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_tpp .


"Viperdoc" wrote in message
.. .
I was planning a trip, and in addition to the standard Jepp charts,
eFlyBook (another saga), I also print out a few of the FAA charts (larger,
easier to read at night, can scribble on them, etc).

However, on downloading and printing a chart from the Airnav website, I
noticed that they were from the last cycle, so might not be valid or
current(??)

Has anyone else noticed this? Are the FAA or AOPA sites any easier to
access and print?



GeorgeC

Viperdoc writes:

However, on downloading and printing a chart from the Airnav website, I
noticed that they were from the last cycle, so might not be valid or
current(??)

You're not supposed to use charts from AirNav for navigation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Since when? Besides, I only simulate flying in my real Baron.

Viperdoc writes:

Since when?

Since always. There are disclaimers on the site, such as "NOT FOR
NAVIGATION. Please procure official charts for flight."

Besides, I only simulate flying in my real Baron.

If you have a real Baron, why (and how) would you simulate flight?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Viperdoc writes:
However, on downloading and printing a chart from the Airnav website, I
noticed that they were from the last cycle, so might not be valid or
current(??)

Mxsmanic wrote:
You're not supposed to use charts from AirNav for navigation.

The Flight Guide says "not for navigation" too, but their airport
diagrams, readily obvious illustrations of reporting points, traffic
patterns and other details make it a very valuable cockpit resource, as
long as you keep it updated, IMO. If we eliminated all the stuff that
says "not for navigation", we'd have a lot less useful info at our
fingertips.

unicate writes:

The Flight Guide says "not for navigation" too, but their airport
diagrams, readily obvious illustrations of reporting points, traffic
patterns and other details make it a very valuable cockpit resource, as
long as you keep it updated, IMO. If we eliminated all the stuff that
says "not for navigation", we'd have a lot less useful info at our
fingertips.

That's why I think it a bit bizarre that so much is still marked "not
for navigation," even when it is manifestly identical to the
"official" materials.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.