The FAA has issued a notice of policy to discontinue World Aeronautical Charts (WACs) without a public comment period.
This concerns officials at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, according to an online report by David Tulis, that quotes Melissa Rudinger, the association’s vice president of government affairs: “AOPA is very concerned that pilots’ voices must be heard regarding any proposed charting changes that would affect safety and we are opposing this decision. We are very frustrated and surprised that the decision to discontinue these charts has circumvented the normal channels for comment and has not been fully vetted with stakeholders.”
The association opposes the notice of intent and “will strongly urge the FAA to answer questions pilots might have first, and then provide a public comment period, before initiating any changes to the WAC series.”
Paper charts are NOW a waste of taxpayaer money. For example, an Android app called AVARE provides you with ALL THE FAA CHARTS electronically AT NO COST, along with georeferenced plates also NO COST. And speaking of plates, aside from those that define obstructions near airports, you can LAND ON A RUNWAY WITH A GPS using such a plate. IF YOU REALLY WANT A PRINTED CHART and wish to waste high priced ink in your ink jet printer, Sectionals for example, can be downloaded as PDF’s from the FAA web site. View the PDF on your table in flight or print it out prior to same. Stop killing trees. Wake up, when was the last time you went to a gas station for a free map?
Mr. Smith you are correct that charts used specifically for aviation should not cost the general taxpayer money, and that electronic charts have some significant advantages. This is why EFBs and the APPS that you cite have been so successful. However, they are not free. They too have production and maintenance costs, albeit in the long term those should be reduced by electronic production. I support that trend, and was even a pioneer of that electronic evolutionary thrust, from the very beginning. However, that is NOT my point. There are still certain planning and operational functions that can still best be done with a physical chart. Someday, that may not be the case, as most relevant information is someday incorporated in EFIS flight deck systems in an appropriate way. But for now, there are some important functions, including map functions, and some critical use corner cases, where physical media is still superior, particularly where markup and dynamic use, or special applications are needed. When was the last time you did an OEI ATOGW analysis per FAR 121.189, accurate to 35′ net flight path, within 200′ inside the boundary, or 300′ outside the boundary,…or an OEI area driftdown analysis on your electronic chart? When was the last time you DERed a GPWS approval against critical terrain? As long as aviation users are willing to pay the fully allocated costs for a paper chart without any tax subsidy, they should remain available. And yes, there are still some corner cases where many still use a paper map on a boat or car, especially where the GPS is known to be incorrect, or is leading users astray, and cases where the paper can be marked up and updated by local relevant knowledge.
OK Smith and Decades, climb down off your high horses and stop generalizing as if you speak for everyone else which you obviously don’t. Take your little electronic gadgets and go play with them while those of us who don’t have them, and don’t intend to have them (they haven’t been mandated by the govment yet far as I know) continue to navigate the old fashion way by using paper charts. Go hug a tree!
WAC charts are very useful, and should not be discontinued.
While it is appropriate that fully allocated costs be recovered for these charts, modern printing methods should allow for cost containment so that the charts remain affordable, even though smaller quantities of the charts may be printed as some pilots migrate to using electronic methods.
Electronic charts DO NOT SAFELY SUBSTITUTE for properly scaled paper charts, for some important flight operations applications. For example, electronic charts are hard to use for safe ad-hoc route contingency planning, and Sectional Charts are more difficult to safely use for aircraft of moderately high groundspeed due to the number of charts needed. This is important when pilots need to address considerations such as off-route obstacle clearance for contingencies (e.g., TRW++s and icing), as well as for particular operational cases for engine inoperative “Driftdown” planning. Only RNP procedures properly address such considerations, yet much of GA hasn’t yt transitioned to use of RNP. It is also important to note that both US TERPS (FAA Order 8430.6 as revised) and ICAO Pans-Ops are virtually useless for accomplishing these kinds of important operational assessments (e.g., OEI driftdown). Whereas WAC charts, are still most useful to practically meet both flight planning and operational regulatory and safety of flight requirements.