When looking at the VFG from the outside, it must seems like, that nothing has happened for the last year.

But we have been working very hard to find the right solution, get the right equipment, get the right training – and we are now producing charts in Naviairs AIM/Chart office.

Unfortunately VAC charts are not the only charts, that have been waiting for our solution – there are many both VFR and IFR charts in both Denmark, Faroe Island and Greenland – which are the areas, that we cover.

The VAC charts are on its way – the first one – from EKVD– will be published on the 17. of march THIS YEAR – and from now on, the rest will slowly be updated month by month.

Thank you for your patience and have a safe flight.

If you want to know more about the situation regarding lack of updated Danish visual approach charts, you will need to ask the Danish. This of course applies to all electronic products which may incorporate visual approach charts. The Danish have published AIC A 03/14 which discusses the issue.

Shifu, this is not a problem with SkyDemon. Please read the thread.

It's probably best to ask the Danish AIM directly. I'm not sure they monitor this forum.

3 Months later the problem is still not fixed and Roskilde's approach chart still does not appear to have been updated by AIM.An idea on the expected delay before a correction?

At the AIM office in Denmark we are very sorry for all the inconvenience,  the missing correct maps may have caused.
We have tried very hard to find a solution, that not only satisfy the need for correct updated maps, but also satisfy our requirement for quality and traceability.
We are still working on a long term solution - but meanwhile please read this AIC A, that has been issued today.
http://aim.naviair.dk/AIM%20Documents/Aeronautical%20Information%20Circulars%20-%20AIC%20series%20A/AIC%20A%20Denmark/EK_Circ_2014_A_03_en.pdf
Best regards
Gitte Joensen
Manager AIM Denmark, Faroe Island and Greenland.

Dear Karsten,

Your points are very interesting, and we will take them into consideration as we determine the best way to proceed. From our side, we have two major concerns in response to your points:

- Our reputation : One concern is that if the user sees airspace drawn differently in SkyDemon than in the "official" VAC, then they are very likely to assume that SkyDemon is wrong. This does harm to our reputation as a trustworthy organisation when ironically, it is our airspace depiction which is the correct one. To say that we cannot be blamed as long as we pass on the official documents is not correct, for this reason.

- Other implied errors : If the airspace is indeed wrong, then how can any of the other chart depictions be trustworthy? If Naviair are well known for publishing documents that are out of date in one aspect, surely they cannot be trusted to keep those documents up to date in other aspects?

The main contact at Naviair that I have been speaking to is a Mrs Gitte Sewell Joensen. Previously I was taking to some of her colleagues and I will pass their email addresses over to you in private message shortly.

Hi Rob

I appreciate your effort on trying to persuade Naviair to update faulty maps. But as I understand, the VACs embedded in SD is merely a grapical overlay on the main SD vector map. The airspaces is embedded in the main map, and will therefore show correct in Virtual Radar¨and in warnings.
The primary purpose of the VAC is to point out VFR entry points, VFR routes and non-fly areas (etc. towns nyt to fly over).
I would rather have a VAC with a faulty depiction of some airspace above than completely missing important information. Take EKRK as example. It is the busiest GA aiport in Denmark, often used by foreign pilots. It has 5 surrounding towns you must not fly over, and heavy fines are issued for violations, but this is only shown on the VAC, not the main map.

It is a well-known and longstanding issue that VACs are not updated together with changes in airspace. It was the same before Naviair took over the responsibility. So if you maintain your standpoint, SD users may have to wait for a very long time. I think you should reconsider this. As long as you forward information provided by officiel Danish authorities, SD can newer be blamed for faults in this information.

If you provide me with contact information on the person in Naviair, you are dealing with, I will try to follow up.

 Regards

Karsten Holt

Karsten,

I have been regularly emailing an AIM manager at Naviair about this matter, and although my contact there has not been able to tell me when the charts will be replaced, she is completely aware that Naviair are publishing documents that do not reflect the current legal airspace. I have repeatedly explained that this is a significant safety concern for us and requested that the erroneous documents be removed until correct ones can be published.

The charts that I have raised concerns about are:
EKVD, EKEB, EKPB, EKRH, EKRS, EKRK

For example, if you take a look at the VFG VAC that Naviair publish for EKVD, you will see that the lateral border for Billund TMA (B) and its vertical limits are completely incorrect. I double checked this against AIP Denmark ENR 2.1 to ensure that the airspace in SkyDemon is faithfully replicated. You will also note that in ENR2.1, all Billund TMA airspace segments are class C, not class D as it says on the VAC.

For another example, check the VFG VAC for EKRS. In this image you can clearly see a sector of Kobenhavn TMA which no longer exists and is now actually part of Roskilde TMA.

Each of the other charts has a similar problem, either showing airspace which has been deleted, or not showing airspace which has been introduced by an AIRAC update. EKPB seems to primarily have problems with airspace on the German side of the border, but it is a problem nonetheless.

If you wanted to email Naviair in order to encourage them to resolve these problems faster, it would be most welcome.

Hello

Could you please give us an update on the missing plates for EKEB, EKRK, EKVD, EKPB and EKRS? We haven't heard anything for the last 2 months.

I would like to know what exectly is wrong with the plates found in the Danish VFR Flight Guide?

Regards
Karsten Holt