Keefe's Sectional Atlases

[skym]

I recently flew a two week crosscountry from Montana to the Carolinas
and return, with numerous stops and diversions along the way. I bought
the Keefe East/West VFR sectional atlases for the trip to compare them
against the single sectional method that I had used before. Although
the cost for my trip with the atlases vs individual sectionals was
marginally higher, the prospect of having a complete set of US
sectionals was enticing, and I wanted to try it out.
My experience was that I found the Okeefe atlases to be much more
difficult to use. The alignment of the charts from page to page was
not easy to use, and was downright confusing sometimes. I really like
the Okeefe idea, so I hate to trash them, but I am thinking of going
back to regular sectionals from here on. Any comments or other
experiences? BTW, I find the Okeefe WACs atlas to be great.
Also the Okeefe IFR enroute book is good.

[Doug]

Stick with the WACs. He uses too small a page for sectionals to be
viable. Only problem with WACs is no airport ID on the map. They are in
front in the list, however.

[Denny]

I have used Howie's AirCharts for 30 years.. Dunno why others may find
them difficult to use but I go all over with them... ymmv.. The
biggest point is that I can go anywhere at any time without the thrash
of, "Oh sheet, I don't have a sectional for that."...
If you don't want your AirCharts send em to me and I'll pass them on to
a new pilot...

denny

[Longworth]

skym,

I agree. We bought the Keefe East VFR atlas when it first come out.
It is not easy to use. We ended up buying regular sectionals for trips.

Hai Longworth

[Richard Graves]

skym wrote:

> I recently flew a two week crosscountry from Montana to the Carolinas
> and return, with numerous stops and diversions along the way. I bought
> the Keefe East/West VFR sectional atlases for the trip to compare them
> against the single sectional method that I had used before. Although
> the cost for my trip with the atlases vs individual sectionals was
> marginally higher, the prospect of having a complete set of US
> sectionals was enticing, and I wanted to try it out.
> My experience was that I found the Okeefe atlases to be much more
> difficult to use. The alignment of the charts from page to page was
> not easy to use, and was downright confusing sometimes. I really like
> the Okeefe idea, so I hate to trash them, but I am thinking of going
> back to regular sectionals from here on. Any comments or other
> experiences? BTW, I find the Okeefe WACs atlas to be great.
> Also the Okeefe IFR enroute book is good.
I subscribe to Howey Keefe's Airchart System for about 10 years, and, for
the most part, I liked it and used it for IFR and VFR flying. I recently
canceled and went to a Sporty's subscription primarily because I could
subscribe to a smaller geographic area. I got tired of the strategic
pricing that always enticed me to buy more than I needed. But, those
comments don't really respond to your question. When he first introduced
the VFR Sectional Atlas I immediately purchased the East volume. I too
found it difficult to use. It wasn't bad if you were following your route
on the chart contemporaneously with your flight. But, if say you were
flying along IFR and you wanted to locate your position on the VFR chart,
it was very difficult and confusing. The pages are just too small. Also,
and this applies to all of his atlases, they become heavy on your lap after
a while. And, finally, I was VERY disappointed that his charts all stop at
the Canadian border. Government Sectional charts cover a certain amount of
Canadian airspace. As I am located in the metro Detroit area, this is a
significant disadvantage.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "skym" > said:
>and return, with numerous stops and diversions along the way. I bought
>the Keefe East/West VFR sectional atlases for the trip to compare them
>against the single sectional method that I had used before. Although

I bought the East sectional atlas. I've never used it on a trip, like I
have the IFR atlas. I've used it for flight planning, and I have given it
to my passengers to point out what we're flying over.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Man in the tower, this is the man in the bird, I'm ready to go, so give me
the word." "Man in the bird, this is the man in the tower, you sound funny,
delay's an hour." - Rod Machado

[DavidM]

The biggest problem with WACs is that they don't show low-level
airspace in terminal areas. For example, if you want to fly under
6,000 feet in the San Francisco Bay area, under 10,000 feet around
Charlotte, or (from memory and possibly wrong) under 7,000 feet around
NYC, you need to use the Sectional or the VFR terminal area chart.

I'm planning a flight down to Atlanta (from Ottawa, ON) next month, and
I'm thinking of order the Air Chart IFR and eastern VFR Sectional
atlases. I fly a lot in the US northeast, and it will be nice not to
have to keep ordering new charts. I'm a little concerned about the
usability issues I'm reading here with the VFR Sectional atlas, but if
I choose the Topographical Atlas (WACs), I'm still going to end up
having to carry sectionals or VFR terminal area charts.

[RST Engineering]

The terminal charts for the USA are printed in the back of the WAC book.
You do not need the sectionals or tacs to fly in a terminal area.

In my humble opinion, anybody with more than 200 hours that is still using
sectionals isn't playing the game too well.

Jim



"DavidM" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The biggest problem with WACs is that they don't show low-level
> airspace in terminal areas. For example, if you want to fly under
> 6,000 feet in the San Francisco Bay area, under 10,000 feet around
> Charlotte, or (from memory and possibly wrong) under 7,000 feet around
> NYC, you need to use the Sectional or the VFR terminal area chart.

[Jose]

> In my humble opinion, anybody with more than 200 hours that is still using
> sectionals isn't playing the game too well.

I think that depends on where, why, and how one flies. WAC charts are
silly for low and slow pilotage, and though I've never used them in a
plane, an atlas would seem to be a pain for flight planning (assuming
you draw lines on the chart in the first place)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[David Megginson]

Thanks for that information. I called Air Chart, and it's actually
sectional excerpts printed at the back, but that's good enough -- I
ordered the IFR and Topo atlases.

In Canada, our WACs are updated every decade or so, so the 1:500K VNCs
are really the *only* game for VFR. In the U.S., I like sectionals for
low-altitude flying (i.e. VFR underneath where terrain is an issue),
and I really appreciated the extra detail of the 1:250K TAC during a
flight last week in the SF Bay Area, as co-pilot of a rented Cessna 152
in less-than-perfect VFR around all those hills, but for a long
cross-country at 10,000 ft, however, I agree -- even in my slow
Warrior, at any decent altitude all the extra detail of the sectionals
is just wasted paper.

[[email protected]]

I have used the Topo Atlas for long trips several times, and find that
they are great for
that purpose. For more local flying (in-state or adjoining states) I
prefer Sectionals.
You encounter problems with either type when your position comes to the
edge of the
map. The only solution to that problem would be to have a seamless map
in an electronic display (like a tablet PC). The rub is that you don't
really have time to mess
with the controls of a PC and fly the plane, too. Besides which there
is no good place
to put it in the cockpit (unless it resides in the copilot's lap).

David Johnson