Jepp Question

[Transition Layer]

No worries JC, I'm sure you were surprised as I was to see a NOTAM specifically referring to Jepp documents. Jepps are still better though!!!

G'day grrowler, hope all is well. Must be time for beers soon.

Cheers,
TL

[Capt Claret]

JC

2- Jepp subscribers DO NOT receive "AIP Supplements and AIC's"

Yes they do, if they subscribe to them. If one does not subscribe to the AIP which comes bundled with AIP SUP/AIC then one doesn't receive them either.

4 - With every DAP amendment you get a checklist of all the pages/contents. This way you can check that you got every page and that it is current. Jepps only send this checklist once a year (Annual Content Checklist). That is once every 26 amendments compared to once every amendment with DAPs.

With every Jeppesen amendment one receives a checklist showing which page to add/remove/replace. This way one can check that they received every page. If one want's to check the whole manual each fortnight, then they can use the annual checklist in conjunction with the fortnightly checklists. BTW, jeppesen also replace up to 40 sheets annually without charge, back when I suubscribed to AIP, nothing was for nothing.

5 - Jepps do not fit "comfortably/easily" in 2 folders. I (and many other pilots I know) have had to purchase extra folders to accomodate all the pages. To be more specific, the Jepps "Terminal Section" does not fit comfortably/easily in one folder.

I considered the purchase of a 3" jeppesen binder, tried it and found that the whole of the Terminal section fit quite well. For other reasons I purchased a 1" binder.

[QSK?]

I Like Both

I like Jepps because the planview and profile diagrams are a bigger size and the numbers are clearer to see under reduced lighting conditions. Whereas the DAP diagrams and numbers are really small in comparison and very hard to see with that 10nm circle and (sometimes) shading around them.

However, I really prefer the DAP's method of presenting the various MDAs, whereas determining MDAs from the Jepps can be a real trial when you are under pressure.

[grrowler]

JC,

thanks for the answer, I hadn't heard of someone flying deliberately 2 dots low, guess its never been an issue in the little ones. Do you (or anyone else) know why the MEHT varies so much?

Conducting a go-around after realising you've landed too far down the runway sounds interesting....

[OzExpat]

Yes, grrowler, I can think of two general reasons for variation of MEHT from standard :-

1. Less than optimum siting of the VASIS or PAPI. This can happen if the ground in the optimum area is soft or subject to subsidence, etc.

2. A close-in obstacle. An example of this might be a road running close to the airport boundary. In such a case, an allowance has to be made for a large (ie tall) vehicle that might be travelling along the relevant section of the road.

Examples of both these problems (and a few others ) can be readily found here in PNG.

[grrowler]

That makes sense, but does that mean you intentionally fly below the guidance lights? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of the allowance for obstacles? swh?