Important: These forums are for discussions between SkyDemon users. They are not routinely monitored by SkyDemon staff so any urgent issues should be sent directly to our Customer Support.

LOWK, missing aeronautical and topographic data


Author
Message
pseudonym
pseudonym
Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 37, Visits: 145
To illustrate the setting, please find below a) the Skydemon chart, b) the VFR approach chart, c) the IFR obstacle chart, d) a topographic map e) Jeppesen mobile flight deck of Klagenfurt and the immediate region north of the airport.

Klagenfurt LOWK in Austria is situated at the south border of the alps in the "basin of Klagenfurt". The town is surrounded by hills and mountains of 1000ft to 1300ft agl.
1. There are two VFR approaches, from the north and the west. Both are equipped with VRP (E1 and E2 and N1,N2 and N3).
2. VFR approach is by sectors (see b)) with a maximum altitude of 3500ft
3. two small holdings at 3000ft (see b))
4. directly north of the aerodrome are hills of 1000ft agl (see c), d), e))
Skydemon depicts only the VRP (1). The sectors (2) are missing, max. sector altitude is not shown, the holdings (3) and their altitude are not shown, the terrain (4) is not displayed. But it is the terrain that forces an atypical close and atypical high downwind for an international airport.

All this gives the false impression using Skydemon of a free approach sector north while there are hills 1000ft agl. The mental picture provided by the Jeppesen chart is fundamentally different: in fact, the north sector is anything but free of obstacles.

While I very much like Skydemon as my most convenient navigational tool, it is probably not suited for mountaineous areas. This is a pity and this post is a plea for a more comprehensive depiction of heights (at least in the vicinity of airports) and the inclusion of AIP data (for both, see eg. Jeppesen).

Kindest regards


a) Skydemon map

b) VFR approach chart from the AIP


c) obstacle chart ICAO type b from the AIP


d) topographic chart 1:30000 from opentopomap.org


e) Jeppesen Mobile Flite Deck

pgroell
pgroell
Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44, Visits: 4.1K
The AIP VFR map is georeferenced in SkyDemon so you can overlay it on the area map.


pseudonym
pseudonym
Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 37, Visits: 145
pgroell - 10/22/2018 4:35:41 PM
The AIP VFR map is georeferenced in SkyDemon so you can overlay it on the area map.


I am well aware of that. But this doesn't cure the false sense of security caused by the missing terrain/elevation data. As large approach plates like this one tend to slow down the refresh rate of Skydemon, they are not that helpful in the final approach. I therefore would prefer the sectors with their altitude to be included in the aeronautical data.

pseudonym
pseudonym
Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 37, Visits: 145
SemperFi - 10/22/2018 5:29:44 PM
The slowing of Skydemon should have been cured by iOS 12.0.1 and the latest app update. Are you saying it still persists?

I was used to remove the approach plates as quick as I can, but will give it a try now if they changed the underlying technique. Thanks for the tip!

Tim Dawson
Tim Dawson
SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 5.7K, Visits: 4.2K
What's wrong with the terrain/elevation data in SkyDemon? It is almost certainly the same data that any other app would be using.

Local specialised approach charts are georeferenced by us so that they can be overlaid on our chart and used if desired. The process of digitising every local feature drawn onto those charts only so we could display it on our own map without the need for overlaying is very expensive and not even wanted by most. It's a local specialised approach chart, the best thing is to just use it.

pseudonym
pseudonym
Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 37, Visits: 145
What's wrong with the terrain/elevation data in SkyDemon?
That it is missing.

It is almost certainly the same data that any other app would be using.
That is for sure. But if you compare the mental image produced by Skydemon (my first image) and Jeppesen (image e) [I don't care for Jeppesen or Garmin or...]): using Skydemon you think you have a free approach sector as depicted in the VFR-Chart b). With Jeppesen, you know that there are 1000ft hills in this approach sector. Only with Jeppesen you understand why there is a small holding at 3000ft depicted in the VFR-chart: because of the terrain which you don't know anything about using Skydemon.

Local specialised approach charts are georeferenced by us so that they can be overlaid on our chart and used if desired. .
Granted and that's the way approach charts can be used. But the hills are not displayed on the approach chart b), only on the IFR obstacle chart c), a topographic chart d) or as an example at Jeppesen e).

I am generally fine with the level of geographic and topographic detail Skydemon provides. Most of the times it fits well for us pilots - in England, north and Central Europe. But this example of the Alps shows the limits of this approach: knowledge of the terrain is indispensable for VFR flights there. You just don't like to be catched by surprise by hills in the traffic pattern. This is not a matter of sloppy flight planning, the software on a tablet is the pilot's source of topographic information today.

See these Google earth views of LOWK, the first one is 1000ft agl from the north-west. My flight path is a little above 1000ft agl while passing the hills mid downwind.


It's a local specialised approach chart, the best thing is to just use it.

But an approach should be feasible without overlaid approach chart (see the discussion in this thread), it should be sufficient having studied, memorized and understood the chart and having it at hand during the approach. Again, with Jeppesen you have a better awareness of the approach.

This is not to niggle, but a plea to add a little topographic data where it is needed. This in no way changes the fact that Skydemon is an extremely good piece of software.

pgroell
pgroell
Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44, Visits: 4.1K
Hello,

I'm not trying to take side in this little discussion but I'm interested as I'm not used to flying in mountainous areas and try to gain all means to get a better image of the terrain I'm flying to.

One tool that I use in SD is the ability to color terrain, I usually set the projected flying height as the reference altitude it then shows in red all terrain only 500ft below me.
For flying into an airfield like LOWK one could set the reference as 3000ft which will show in red all terrain 1000ft AAL, in orange all terrain 500ft AAL and yellow all terrain below 500ft AAL. (see picture)
It is great as a planning tool, maybe less for flying as it clutters the screen a bit.

I know it does not really answer your request but to me seems at least an interesting workaround.



Edited 10/26/2018 8:22:18 AM by pgroell
pseudonym
pseudonym
Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 37, Visits: 145
pgroell - 10/26/2018 8:19:51 AM
Hello,

I'm not trying to take side in this little discussion but I'm interested as I'm not used to flying in mountainous areas and try to gain all means to get a better image of the terrain I'm flying to.

One tool that I use in SD is the ability to color terrain, I usually set the projected flying height as the reference altitude it then shows in red all terrain only 500ft below me.
For flying into an airfield like LOWK one could set the reference as 3000ft which will show in red all terrain 1000ft AAL, in orange all terrain 500ft AAL and yellow all terrain below 500ft AAL. (see picture)
It is great as a planning tool, maybe less for flying as it clutters the screen a bit.

I know it does not really answer your request but to me seems at least an interesting workaround.



Yes, this could/should fill in the gap of missing elevation points. it is probably not suitable for the approach (fiddling around with preferences of your navigational tool while sinking from 8000ft asl to 2400ft asl (pattern alt). But one could use this as a supplemental obstacle chart while flight planning. I should include this in my workflow. 
The hills which triggered my post are between N3 and the runway. But even with your large scale you see the problem of VRP Sierra (recommended departure route) 1400ft aal, which means that scattered/broken 1300ft is not sufficient for that departure.

pseudonym
pseudonym
Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.5K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 37, Visits: 145
pseudonym - 10/26/2018 8:57:08 AM
pgroell - 10/26/2018 8:19:51 AM
Hello,

I'm not trying to take side in this little discussion but I'm interested as I'm not used to flying in mountainous areas and try to gain all means to get a better image of the terrain I'm flying to.

One tool that I use in SD is the ability to color terrain, I usually set the projected flying height as the reference altitude it then shows in red all terrain only 500ft below me.
For flying into an airfield like LOWK one could set the reference as 3000ft which will show in red all terrain 1000ft AAL, in orange all terrain 500ft AAL and yellow all terrain below 500ft AAL. (see picture)
It is great as a planning tool, maybe less for flying as it clutters the screen a bit.

I know it does not really answer your request but to me seems at least an interesting workaround.



Yes, this could/should fill in the gap of missing elevation points. it is probably not suitable for the approach (fiddling around with preferences of your navigational tool while sinking from 8000ft asl to 2400ft asl (pattern alt). But one could use this as a supplemental obstacle chart while flight planning. I should include this in my workflow. 
The hills which triggered my post are between N3 and the runway. But even with your large scale you see the problem of VRP Sierra (recommended departure route) 1400ft aal, which means that scattered/broken 1300ft is not sufficient for that departure.

I got it, finally. 


This is what I was basically looking for: the terrain warning wth a reference altitude of 2250ft (800ft AAL, typical traffic pattern altitude). The problems north of the "L" of LOWK south of N3 as well as VRP Sierra are clearly visible. I don't hav a good idea how to integrate this in flight as the flight level in the Alps may change, but for flight preparation it is fine. Thus, as Tim Dawson pointed out, the data are there, now they are visible.

@TD: maybe you find a way to combine the cleanliness of the in-flight display of SD with the detail advantageous in some circumstances. I have no idea how to do this without adding even more features. I fear SD might become a little obese if every request results in another feature. Maybe having a switch (at the layers preferences) which facultatively displays the terrain and sets ref alt to 1000ft AAL if closer than 3NM from the aerodrome.

@pgroell: My tablet is an Ipad Mini from 2014. Your screen resolution appears to be higher. What hardware do you use?


pgroell
pgroell
Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44, Visits: 4.1K
The picture was taken on my Ipad Air 2 used for planning (with my PC) , in flight I use an Ipad Mini.


GO

Merge Selected

Merge into selected topic...



Merge into merge target...



Merge into a specific topic ID...




Reading This Topic

Login

Explore
Messages
Mentions
Search