WAC vs Sectional

Most of my students transition from sectionals to WACs at about 800-1000
hours PIC and never look back.

I'd say more important is the altitude at which one flies. Low to the
ground, even with a zillion hours, a WAC is next to useless. Up where
you need oxygen, sectionals may lose their appeal.

Jose
r.a.misc trimmed
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Doug wrote:

The Aircharts have all the Class B and Class C areas on sectionals in
the back.

What do you mean by "air chart"? I'm looking at a 1994 WAC CG-21, which covers
the area from Philadelphia to most of South Carolina. It does not have anything
special for the Class B and C airports. Is this something new in the last 10
years?

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

wrote:
I currently subscribe to the Airchart IFR and sectional service. I was
looking at changing to the WAC and IFR service.

I also use the Aircharts service, and switched from WACs to the sectional
service this past year. I fly in some fairly cluttered areas, and even
with the class B/C sectional extracts the WAC atlas was just not cutting
it, detail-wise, for my VFR flying; fewer frequencies, and no identifiers
or pattern info. For high-altitude IFR flying it was fine, but in that
case it's really only a situational awareness aid.

Since you're a current subscriber, you can probably get a sectional atlas
from them either for the asking or at minimal cost.

Did anyone ever get use from the now-discontinued Sky Prints atlas? I
never really saw the point. (If I could get a bound atlas with sectional
charts for 300nm from either coast and WACs for everything else, I'd be a
happy camper.)

He is referring to a commerical product that comes in a big book. It has
the entire US in WAC charts, with Sectional detail of all Class C and
B airspace. It is updated by subscription.

They also sell sectional charts in big books (east and west versions) as
well as IFR LO charts for the whole country.

http://www.airchart.com/

Dave

George Patterson wrote:

Doug wrote:

The Aircharts have all the Class B and Class C areas on sectionals in
the back.


What do you mean by "air chart"? I'm looking at a 1994 WAC CG-21, which covers
the area from Philadelphia to most of South Carolina. It does not have anything
special for the Class B and C airports. Is this something new in the last 10
years?

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

The new issues later this year will have the identifiers added.

This is a great victory for EAA and AOPA, which have been clamoring for this
addition for a long time.

Adding the airport identifiers to WACs will make them much more usable,
IMHO. I will probably switch to using them exclusively after this change
takes place, since that has always been my biggest objection to using them
in the past.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I'd say more important is the altitude at which one flies. Low to the
ground, even with a zillion hours, a WAC is next to useless. Up where you
need oxygen, sectionals may lose their appeal.

True. But on a long cross country, even in the middle altitudes, WACs are
so much nicer to deal with.

In the past, we would carry sectionals for reference, but use WACs for
planning and in-flight use. Now, with the airport identifiers being added
to them, the sectionals will become superfluous.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

In the past, we would carry sectionals for reference, but use WACs for
planning and in-flight use. Now, with the airport identifiers being added
to them, the sectionals will become superfluous.

I'll stay with sectionals. I want the radio frequency info.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

I'd say more important is the altitude at which one flies. Low to the
ground, even with a zillion hours, a WAC is next to useless. Up where you
need oxygen, sectionals may lose their appeal.


True. But on a long cross country, even in the middle altitudes, WACs are
so much nicer to deal with.

I guess you don't fly low cross countries. I like to go CT to FL at
five hundred feet. A thousand over some parts. A WAC won't cut it
there.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I guess you don't fly low cross countries. I like to go CT to FL at five
hundred feet. A thousand over some parts. A WAC won't cut it there.

What're you flying, Jose?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

What're you flying, Jose?

A Dakota.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.