Jepps vs. NOS Terminal Procedures

[minitour]

Got the NOS last week because I needed them for ground school and $3 was cool....

Moving foward...at this point in my training is the $30+ really worth it for the Jepps?

Opinions greatly appreciated

-mini

 

[vclean]

Airlines use Jepps. If money is an issue, continue using NOS, however, I would find some expired Jepp charts and study them. Be thoroughly familiar with Jepp before an interview.

 

[Lead Sled]

We are currently using both in our operation. We use Jeppesen's JeppView to print out the individual charts for each trip and we have a set of "NOS" charts on board in the case of unanticipated inflight diversions. (We have not gone the "paperless" route - I haven't seen a reliable and affordable cockpit terminal yet. Hopefully that will change and we will go that way - with a set of NOS on board as a backup.)

We've gone this route to minimize the amount of effort necessary to keep updated charts. Basically, using this method, we don't have to update anything except for the occasional enroute chart.

NOS charts (I know they're called something else now, but old habits are hard to break.) are OK, but the Jeppesen format is perhaps a little more user friendly. It all boils down to what you're used to. Arguing one over the other is like arguing Ford vs. Chevy or blonde vs. brunnette vs. redhead.

I suppose that if I was laying out my own money for the charts I'd probably lean towards the NOS version; but personally I prefer the Jepps.

Sorry that I haven't been any more help.

Lead Sled

 

[minitour]

vclean,
First just wanted to say thanks for the input.

Second, I should probably re-clarify.

The $30 isn't so much an issue if its going to be something that will be beneficial(even if in the future).

I just didn't feel the $30 was worth it for 2 weeks of ground school stuff until they exire.

Does it seem as though most of y'all use the Jepps?

-mini

PS
Lead,
Thats a no brainer....definately brunette

 

[midlifeflyer]

There are differences in layout and format that can make a difference in the user-friendliness of the charts.

As examples, the Jepp enroutes tend to be easier to use than the NACO, mostly because of the way they are folded. The higher detail Jepp area charts for busy terminal areas (sort of an IFR version of a Class B chart) don't even exist in the NACO world. Jepp approach charts also tend to have more terrain features shown in more detail.

But whether someone likes one or the other better or whether the differences are worth the extra cost, is really a personal decision. For training purposes, I'd generally use the NACO charts. They are the ones on the knowledge test, and if you're doing most of your local training as practice approaches under VFR (most do), you can download the few that you really need for free

from NACO: http://naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_tpp
from AOPA or from www.myairplane.com

And , after all, it's sort of like primary training - why spend extra for the brand new 172S if the old reliable 152 will do - you can always upgrade later.

 

[Goose Egg]

Moving foward...at this point in my training is the $30+ really worth it for the Jepps?

I use Jepps. NOSs are improving, which is good, but they are still not as easy to read in my opinion.

As far as the cost goes, figure about $10 per cycle (every 56 days) for NOS IAPs and enroute charts. 365/56=about 6.5 cycles per year, which translates into around $65 per year for the NOS. I have a Jepp Airway Manual Express subscription for which I pay around $100 per year, which equals out to about $15 per cycle, and about $35 more per year. So, when you look at it that way, NOSs really aren't that much cheaper, and I think the Jepps are worth the additional $5 per cycle.

Now, if I fly out of my Jepp coverage, I'll pick up the NOS plates for the area. But then again, as a flight instructor, that doesn't happen very often.

-Goose

 

[lawfly]

Jepp vs. NOS Terminal Procedures

NOS/NACO Area Charts

I'm a long-time Jepp user, but am currently using NACO, as current NACO terminal procedures charts are available free online. I would probably still vote for Jepps overall, in terms of display, etc. Re: IFR area charts: NACO does publish its own version, the A-1, A-2. In the format of a single low altitude enroute chart, but each panel or portion of a panel is actually a spearate area depiction, such as San Francisco, L.A., Dallas, and others. Varies from Jepps, but at least they do have a version of the area charts.

 

[pilotman2105]

I just didn't feel the $30 was worth it for 2 weeks of ground school stuff until they exire.

That's a deal on Jepp charts. The FBO that I use to buy my charts at had the airway manual for $50 a pop because Jepp wouldn't take back the charts that the FBO didn't sell.

$50 or $10?

I'm a cheap bastard.

 

[ThunderRun]

If you're going to compare cost, you can get a subscription of terminal procedures direct from NACO for 19.95 per year (7 cycles). I can get all approach charts, enroute charts and AFDs for the five-state region I fly in for $175 per year from NACO. To get the same coverage from Jeppesen would cost $280 for the standard airway manual service and $320 for the airway manual express.

 

[Lead Sled]

There is actually a 3rd choice out there - Air Charts. I understand that they are basically a repackaged NOS chart. I've never used them, has anyone out there had any experience with them?

Lead Sled

 

[midlifeflyer]

There is actually a 3rd choice out there - Air Charts. I understand that they are basically a repackaged NOS chart. I've never used them, has anyone out there had any experience with them?

I used them for a while. They are, as you said, repackaged NOS charts. The enroute has a small advantage in that, being cropped and spiral bound, there's no chart folding and they're easy to work with.

The update system is via a sort of printed NOTAM telling you what the changes are. The idea is that you write them down on the charts yourself as needed. That's the only way to update the enroute. The approach charts, of course, you can update by downloading them.

 

[bobbysamd]

Government v. Jepps

Eleven years ago, Mesa used government charts, probably because they were cheaper than Jepps. That said, I always liked Jepp approach plates better than government, but, oddly enough, I liked NOS enroute charts better than Jepps.

Jepps are the industry standard. If you can afford them and have the time to update them twice a month, go for them. You're far more likely to encounter Jepps on the line. And, the Jepp format is the same for foreign and domestic IAPs.

 

[MGXsport]

I personally like the format of the gov. ones better.

I think people get a little to reliant on only the jepp ones though. Had someone today that about threw a fit when we ran out of express packs. He had to cancel his flight for tomorrow because he couldn't read the NACO ones

 

[SMOE]

I use both but find the NACO plates more difficult to read and the Jepp enroute charts give you far more information. I use the Jepp when I can.

 

[minitour]

Wow...thanks for the info guys...I guess there's a little more diversity in answers than I expected....

I honestly expected to hear "get the Jepps" from almost everyone but am pleasantly suprised to hear the NACO/NOS charts are okay (and my wallet thanks you too)

Thanks for the help.

-mini

 

[slomo]

That said, I always liked Jepp approach plates better than government, but, oddly enough, I liked NOS enroute charts better than Jepps.

I've felt that same way too. The NACO enroute charts are so much more sturdy.

 

[philo beddoe]

One nice thing about NOS is that if you do not need charts for a few weeks, you don't have to buy them.

With the continuous revision of Jepp, you can't have any gaps in the service.

 

[Tinstaafl]

NOS also use a top flip over style of binding while Jepps use the L-R book type. I vastly prefer the NOS type of binding. Can't say I like their presentation style but the flip overwhelms that undesirable aspect.

 

[minitour]

I actually decided to try the Jepps out if nothing else, just to see the differences in formats...

I REALLY found ou tI like the book style format...all I have to do is flip to the approach and there I go...I also REALLY like the format...the way the approaches/DP/STARs are all set up...and stuff like that...

I'm debating trying the NOS stuff again next time just for cost, but I don't see a benefit of jumping back and forth all the time...

I appreciate all the opinions though...

-mini

PS - I guess my only "complaint" if you can call it that, is the pages seem real flimsy...although the enroute charts fit nicely either in the yoke clip or in the plastic page of the kneeboard...either way its cool

 

[Tinstaafl]

It's the having to pull pages out of the binder prior to use that I detest. That's why I don't like Jepps (or the UK's Aerads which are their government's charts).

Flip over binders let me thumb through & have the desired plate on top & ready for use almost as soon as I've found it. After use a quick flick & it's all packed away. Not so the Jepp/Aerad book binder.

 

[pilotman2105]

...but I don't see a benefit of jumping back and forth all the time...

FWIW, you become proficient at reading both styles of charts. No "reviewing" the other method before going flying. That can be handy when you need to make an approach, but only have one type of chart available to you, etc.

 

[minitour]

FWIW, you become proficient at reading both styles of charts. No "reviewing" the other method before going flying. That can be handy when you need to make an approach, but only have one type of chart available to you, etc.

Good point...I guess I never thought about that...

-mini

 

[coolyokeluke]

midlifeflyer thanks for the link to the NACO site. I recently changed 135 companies and the new one uses NOS charts so I had to learn the new format and I'm still learning. I agree that NOS enroute is better. The NOS arrangement is still not intuative to me, different sections for IFR departures (nonstandard), it includes high approaches used by the military, etc. Other than those nuances it hasn't been too traumatic of a transition. I agree with learning both, and studying Jepp stuff if you have an interview.

 

[flytheblue]

I would say it would be to one's advantage to be familiar with BOTH chart styles, and to use what you prefer. It seems that the airlines use Jepps and 135 companies (not all but I'd venture most) like to use NOS charts, so if you are interviewing you should be comfortable with both styles. Personally I've always used Jepp, I just like the layout better and having the info labelled and on one page, as opposed to NOS where you'd have to do alot of flipping to get the info you want.

 

[Tinstaafl]

I suppose I should elaborate slightly. My true preference for currently available plates is for Australia's equivalent of NOS, the Departure & Approach Procedures ('DAPs'). They use a flip over binding & a very easily understood layout with lots of good information on them.

I find their notation is as good or better than Jepps but without the bloody awful Jepp binding system. Plate organisation took a turn for the worse a number of years ago so that now all plates associated with an airport are collated with each other.

Previously SIDs were organised in a separate flip binder, allowing you to taxi with an airport diagram open in flip #1, without interfering with setting up the SID plate in flip #2, then depart using the SID plate while simultaneously having an approach plate ready to use if suddenly needed. After t/o a quick flick to each flip and they were ready to be put away. A boon to single pilot IFR. Jeez I was peeved when they combined the two binder sets.