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.

Chart Version


Author
Message
Misc.
Misc.
Too Much Forum (202 reputation)Too Much Forum (202 reputation)Too Much Forum (202 reputation)Too Much Forum (202 reputation)Too Much Forum (202 reputation)Too Much Forum (202 reputation)Too Much Forum (202 reputation)Too Much Forum (202 reputation)Too Much Forum (202 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4, Visits: 10
I note that the SD chart does not show the new Forth Bridge which opened August 2017. Apparently it is shown on the latest CAA charts. Why is this?

My understanding was that the SD charts are more up to date than the printed CAA charts?

TIA

MarkusM
M
Too Much Forum (85 reputation)Too Much Forum (85 reputation)Too Much Forum (85 reputation)Too Much Forum (85 reputation)Too Much Forum (85 reputation)Too Much Forum (85 reputation)Too Much Forum (85 reputation)Too Much Forum (85 reputation)Too Much Forum (85 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 58, Visits: 55
I wouldn't see Forth Bridge as part of the aviation charts, the VRP is there and it is on the old tower. Seems the underlying topographic data is a bit outdated.
Misc.
Misc.
Too Much Forum (202 reputation)Too Much Forum (202 reputation)Too Much Forum (202 reputation)Too Much Forum (202 reputation)Too Much Forum (202 reputation)Too Much Forum (202 reputation)Too Much Forum (202 reputation)Too Much Forum (202 reputation)Too Much Forum (202 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4, Visits: 10
Markus, I'd disagree. With a tower taller than the old bridge, granted not by much, and with it being significant enough to be on the printed chart. It should be on SD's chart.

I'm curious as to why it is not and more importantly, is there any other differences which may be likely to cause an issue, such as airspace which is not so easily seen.

MarkusM
M
Too Much Forum (85 reputation)Too Much Forum (85 reputation)Too Much Forum (85 reputation)Too Much Forum (85 reputation)Too Much Forum (85 reputation)Too Much Forum (85 reputation)Too Much Forum (85 reputation)Too Much Forum (85 reputation)Too Much Forum (85 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 58, Visits: 55
As I see, Skydemon focusses on aviation databases and the new bridge is not in the aviation relevant data, not even in the obstacles database I looked at (which surprised me, indeed). For me this leaves two questions. First, why did the authorities not add the new bridge to the known aviation obstacles - they simply forgot to tell or the two other bridges nearby are so much higher anyways so they saw no need? Second, why didn't the separate topographic map supplier add it as a landmark - maybe not important for them? Neither First nor Second has anything to do with Skydemon - Skydemon doesn't do maps, they use supplied. If we find out the bridge was added to the databases Skydemon grabs, be it aviation or topographic or scenic, we may ask, but before? *addendum* I just looked at the databases Skydemon uses - Inchgarvie is there as POI which would be fine for navigation for me, btw, Kelty Lane route is also missing in Skydemon but also in the official plates - anybody with access to Pooleys to check for KL route?
Edited 4/22/2019 1:12:42 PM by MarkusM
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