Jeppesen vs Garmin
Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray
- Boatguy
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:48 am
- First Name: Russ
- Aircraft Type: DA62
- Aircraft Registration: N962M
- Airports: KSTS
- Has thanked: 1365 times
- Been thanked: 1196 times
Jeppesen vs Garmin
Jeppesen vs Garmin
- Arrival, Departure and Approach plates
- Navdata
- Enroute charts
Any comments (ha!), especially from those actually using Jeppesen products? You can skip the comments about Jeppesen costing more, that's well established. I'm curious about the content of the products.
FWIW, I've been using Jeppesen plates for the last year and prefer them to the FAA plates. The value of the Navdata and charts is not quite as clear to me.
- Arrival, Departure and Approach plates
- Navdata
- Enroute charts
Any comments (ha!), especially from those actually using Jeppesen products? You can skip the comments about Jeppesen costing more, that's well established. I'm curious about the content of the products.
FWIW, I've been using Jeppesen plates for the last year and prefer them to the FAA plates. The value of the Navdata and charts is not quite as clear to me.
- danno2000
- 3 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 4:26 pm
- First Name: Dan
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N270DS
- Airports: KAQW
- Has thanked: 55 times
- Been thanked: 76 times
Re: Jeppesen vs Garmin
For non-WAAS, Jepp was the only game in town. I upgraded one of the 430s to a 530W but left the other one in, so it was easier to get a joint subscription with Jepp.Boatguy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:28 pm Any comments (ha!), especially from those actually using Jeppesen products? You can skip the comments about Jeppesen costing more, that's well established. I'm curious about the content of the products.
FWIW, I've been using Jeppesen plates for the last year and prefer them to the FAA plates. The value of the Navdata and charts is not quite as clear to me.
I prefer the Jepp approach plates as well. The en route charts are a mixed bag - they're full of information but often end up seeming too cluttered, making me prefer the vanilla VFR or low-IFR charts as published. But there've been times when the Jepp charts were very helpful - the example I can think of now was finding a frequency for Center on the Jepp chart itself as I moved across freq boundaries and didn't get handed off in time. Kept me from having to pick an airport on ForeFlight and hope it listed a center frequency.
best,
dan
- Rich
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
- First Name: Rich
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N40XE
- Airports: S39 Prineville OR
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1186 times
Re: Jeppesen vs Garmin
Dan, your reply leaves me a bit confused. The GNS units don't display approach charts or enroute charts really. In my case, the choice would be which charts to use in Foreflight. I use the Garmin charts in FF. Center frequencies are displayed right on the chart, and include the gross boundaries of center coverage.
And I don't know of a way to get a joint Jepp Subscription that would span the GNS and FF
And I don't know of a way to get a joint Jepp Subscription that would span the GNS and FF
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
- danno2000
- 3 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 4:26 pm
- First Name: Dan
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N270DS
- Airports: KAQW
- Has thanked: 55 times
- Been thanked: 76 times
Re: Jeppesen vs Garmin
Agree, I’m talking about Jepp charts in ForeFlight. Forgot to realize that might make my experience irrelevant for the G1000 owner.Rich wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:36 pm Dan, your reply leaves me a bit confused. The GNS units don't display approach charts or enroute charts really. In my case, the choice would be which charts to use in Foreflight. I use the Garmin charts in FF. Center frequencies are displayed right on the chart, and include the gross boundaries of center coverage.
And I don't know of a way to get a joint Jepp Subscription that would span the GNS and FF
Joint subscription meant WAAS data for the 530W and nonWAAS data for the 430. My understanding after checking into it is I couldn’t get nonWAAS data from Garmin, only WAAS.
When I subscribed to Jepp for the GNS data I got ForeFlight Jepp info included. Is that not standard? I can’t speak to Garmin charts for ForeFlight.
best,
dan
- Rich
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
- First Name: Rich
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N40XE
- Airports: S39 Prineville OR
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1186 times
Re: Jeppesen vs Garmin
That’s news to me. My Jepp GNS nav data (dual WAAS units) is coming up for renewal. I’ll look into this possibility.
Actually I misspoke about “Garmin Charts” in FF. The ones I use in FF are the standard gov charts FF provides as the base.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
- chili4way
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 524
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:51 pm
- First Name: Paul
- Aircraft Type: DA40NG
- Aircraft Registration: N718NG
- Airports: KADS
- Has thanked: 1063 times
- Been thanked: 483 times
Re: Jeppesen vs Garmin
I subscribed to the Jepp approach plates for a year on ForeFlight. There was a promotional offer, so I decided to try them out. I did not renew.
- I learned on FAA charts, so the Jepp charts never became as familiar. Call it primacy bias.
- I extensively mark up my charts (in ForeFlight), so I add whatever information I might need, e.g., distance to the airport from key waypoints on an approach to an untowered airport.
- I don't fly internationally, where the worldwide standardization of approach chart formatting would be helpful. Ask an airline pilot.
- I thought the Jepp SIDs and STARs' geolocated capabilities were pretty cool, and they didn't matter in flight since my plane has a G1000.
- haykinson
- 3 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:32 am
- First Name: ilya
- Aircraft Type: DA40NG
- Aircraft Registration: N724LA
- Airports: KSMO
- Has thanked: 36 times
- Been thanked: 48 times
Re: Jeppesen vs Garmin
Serious question here — how does everyone use low-IFR charts? I find that in my IFR flying, I basically never use them. They show a few interesting things like MEAs, airports with/without approaches, MCAs, etc, but... in practice, Foreflight has most of this data in their "aeronautical chart" overlay which provides a lot more context, and things like MCAs etc are mostly moot given ATC instructions.
- Rich
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
- First Name: Rich
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N40XE
- Airports: S39 Prineville OR
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1186 times
Re: Jeppesen vs Garmin
I always have the enroute charts up when IFR. Those altitudes are critical to know. Blindly accepting altitude assignments from ATC is bad practice. As it happens I was recently reading an accident report about a flight in Alaska where the controller cleared a flight down to 2200 ft. in an area where the minimum altitudes are 4300 ft. and above. For whatever reason the crew complied and died. It's not an uncommon occurrence for ATC to overlook you when things get busy.haykinson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:17 pm Serious question here — how does everyone use low-IFR charts? I find that in my IFR flying, I basically never use them. They show a few interesting things like MEAs, airports with/without approaches, MCAs, etc, but... in practice, Foreflight has most of this data in their "aeronautical chart" overlay which provides a lot more context, and things like MCAs etc are mostly moot given ATC instructions.
Where I fly MEA/MOCA etc. will vary along the route from 4K - 11K. It's good to know about a pending altitude change ahead of time. Or what altitude you might request for one reason or another.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
- chili4way
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 524
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:51 pm
- First Name: Paul
- Aircraft Type: DA40NG
- Aircraft Registration: N718NG
- Airports: KADS
- Has thanked: 1063 times
- Been thanked: 483 times
Re: Jeppesen vs Garmin
I use the low-IFR charts mostly in planning and occasionally inflight. While planning, I sometimes find them helpful in selecting waypoints to transition to initial approach fixes (at non-towered airports where there's no STAR). Several IFR chart features (e.g. MCAs) would play a more prominent role if I flew in mountainous areas. I typically fly 10,000 MSL or higher on off-airway XC trips in the South & Midwest.
While flying in VMC, I mostly use the IFR charts to play "guess the next ATC frequency." It's easy to find Center frequencies near the boundaries. The other approaches I use to play are checking the ForeFlight frequency list or pulling up an approach plate) for a nearby airport. Otherwise, I find the VFR charts to be more useful in the event I lose GPS on my typical off-airway routing. (Yes, I keep two VORs tuned and identified as backups, too.)
When flying in IMC (and if I fly out West) the additional MEA/MOCA, terrain, and obstruction information on the IFR charts would be more important en-route.
While flying in VMC, I mostly use the IFR charts to play "guess the next ATC frequency." It's easy to find Center frequencies near the boundaries. The other approaches I use to play are checking the ForeFlight frequency list or pulling up an approach plate) for a nearby airport. Otherwise, I find the VFR charts to be more useful in the event I lose GPS on my typical off-airway routing. (Yes, I keep two VORs tuned and identified as backups, too.)
When flying in IMC (and if I fly out West) the additional MEA/MOCA, terrain, and obstruction information on the IFR charts would be more important en-route.
- Rich
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
- First Name: Rich
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N40XE
- Airports: S39 Prineville OR
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1186 times
Re: Jeppesen vs Garmin
In the context of using FF, I figure there's little benefit to Jeppesen vs. NACO. For example center boundaries and frequencies now display in FF in their straight Aero, Sectional and enroute charts. And you can pop between chart combinations in seconds.
The new release allows fine-tuning airway detail in the display of Aero data, overlaying the other types or not. You can also get right to Takeoff/Alternate minimums pages for a specific airport without bringing up the Chart Supplement and searching therein.
In short the EFBs go well beyond what the charts themselves provide in usability. I'm from ye olde days when Jepp would send a packet of loose-page updates every 2 weeks and you had to manage current/pending/obsolete things in your binder(s) . There is a contingent out there that insists on paper charts. I wonder if paper-chart Jepp users still have to do this .
The new release allows fine-tuning airway detail in the display of Aero data, overlaying the other types or not. You can also get right to Takeoff/Alternate minimums pages for a specific airport without bringing up the Chart Supplement and searching therein.
In short the EFBs go well beyond what the charts themselves provide in usability. I'm from ye olde days when Jepp would send a packet of loose-page updates every 2 weeks and you had to manage current/pending/obsolete things in your binder(s) . There is a contingent out there that insists on paper charts. I wonder if paper-chart Jepp users still have to do this .
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5