Jepps vs. NOS Terminal Procedures

[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.