Standards in charting

08.03.2005

Submission:

I have over the past 2 weeks researched quite a number of different documents relating to charting, including ICAO and different standards from different states and no-one is consistent. For instance, ICAO does have a very clear description of different runway/approach lighting systems without recommended abbreviations for such systems (Aerodrome Design Manual Part 4) and all other resources researched use different codes for these systems. Some states use abbreviations on charts that could not be traced to a list of abbreviations as published by those states, very confusing. This means that pilots need to carry more than one AIP in the cockpit when flying to different states, just to research all the different abbreviations for exactly the same system according to ICAO standards and recommended practices. The same goes for symbols, in all the different AIPs is different symbols, not the same as those proposed by ICAO in Annex 4, meaning again, that the pilot has to check those symbols against the symbol codes as published in the AIP, again very confusing. My question: What is or should be the international standard regarding charting symbols and abbreviations to be used on charts? For the majority of pilots this is no problem as many would use commercially available plates and charts and their manuals would give a clear explanation of the symbols and abbreviations as published. However, commercial vendors of charts maintain copyright over this and so the abbreviations and symbols as published by them can not be used by anyone else. So, everyone else just do whatever they think is correct according to "international standards", which I can not find anywhere, as the standards checked are all different. What then is the international standard?
S. Alberts - ATNS South Africa

Answer or Commentary:

(I.W.
As far as I can see, for AIP charts, ICAO Annex 4 and the charting manual are the international standards if the country is an ICAO member state.

However many airlines have elected to fly using commercially available charts that satisfy their specific needs (i.e. A5 format or an electronic flight bag). The commercial vendors of such aeronautical charts spend a large amount of time converting AIP charts from different countries into their own standardised format. These commercial vendors are not bound by ICAO standards but by financial and customer constraints.

For example, one commercially available set of charts use a simple and cost effective circle as a symbol for both a VOR AND a VOR/DME. At first this shocked my conservatism but then I realised the reasons for this. If no DME is collocated with the VOR, no DME indications will be given on the chart and the DME channel will not be listed. This makes it obvious to a pilot that has been trained on such charts. This simplifies the production of a large number of charts and reduces the clutter that can accumulate on an AIP chart.

Another example is if your airline fleet contains no category A or B aircraft, why do you need these minimum OCA/H values on the chart? Even small changes like that can affect the clarity of the chart and the cost effectiveness of its production.

So my personal opinion is that aeronautical charts used in the cockpit should be safe, usable and cost effective to produce. Standardisation throughout a set of charts is paramount in ensuring safety while the other points are a secondary feature that quite often though determines which commercially available chart is actually used in the cockpit.