Range Maps

[Keith]

Ultralights to be legal have to avoid all the cities in yellow. Actually gives more room than the map but course is one i generally fly going to Rio Vista

This has been bugging me, the more I look at the maps the more I see something that is completely out of date - in fact the yellow cities are over 30 years out of date. Lompoc's populated areas (yellow) lines up with our 1983 aerials, same with Vandenberg Village, and several other cities in California. Something is seriously amiss at the FAA if they are 30 years off. I've sent them an email about it, I doubt they'll have a look at it. :-[

*edit: I also noticed Oceano airport (L52) is displayed with no tick marks, even though it has been offering fuel for years. This is on the Dec. 11, 2014 FAA VFR map that is valid until Jun. 25, 2015. I have the feeling that someone at the FAA is not doing their job.

[Keith]

As I guessed, the most recent VFR FAA maps for populated areas is even older than 1983, since then housing developments have gone all the way up to the airport itself over the past 30 years.
This makes me wonder what else is incorrect on these navigational maps?

* VFR map has been overlayed over the 1983 aerial and then faded to show populated areas over the aerial. As you can see, there is noticeable housing development to the North East that is not included (in 1983), the entire North up to the airport is now very populated city.

[scottiniowa]

As I guessed, the most recent VFR FAA maps for populated areas is even older than 1983, since then housing developments have gone all the way up to the airport itself over the past 30 years.
This makes me wonder what else is incorrect on these navigational maps?
 

Kieth,
all really important stuff that matters to  VFR pilots has been changed if it needed changing.. i.e. squawk codes and the like.  All of which really won’t matter much to  you.   Spend your time making parts and not maps and you will be far closer to see if the maps are right someday.

cheers

[Sam Buchanan]

Ultralights to be legal have to avoid all the cities in yellow. Actually gives more room than the map but course is one i generally fly going to Rio Vista

This has been bugging me, the more I look at the maps the more I see something that is completely out of date - in fact the yellow cities are over 30 years out of date. Lompoc's populated areas (yellow) lines up with our 1983 aerials, same with Vandenberg Village, and several other cities in California. Something is seriously amiss at the FAA if they are 30 years off. I've sent them an email about it, I doubt they'll have a look at it. :-[

*edit: I also noticed Oceano airport (L52) is displayed with no tick marks, even though it has been offering fuel for years. This is on the Dec. 11, 2014 FAA VFR map that is valid until Jun. 25, 2015. I have the feeling that someone at the FAA is not doing their job.

The yellow on sectionals is pretty much a moot point these days. The yellow was originally intended to assist the night VFR pilot who was navigating by pilotage. The yellow areas approximate densely lighted areas of a city.

However....nobody navigates at night anymore purely by landmarks, GPS has made that type of navigation obsolete. The yellow areas are merely a historical oddity and have little relevance today.

By the way, don't waste time thinking that yellow designates congested areas. It was never intended for that purpose and the FAA can call just about any area it wishes a congested area if it decides to pursue violation of a pilot (or non-pilot in the case of ultralights) that is flying in a questionable manner.

I can think of a bunch of things that would be more productive to consider than yellow areas on the sectional.  

[Keith]

By the way, don't waste time thinking that yellow designates congested areas. It was never intended for that purpose and the FAA can call just about any area it wishes a congested area if it decides to pursue violation of a pilot (or non-pilot in the case of ultralights) that is flying in a questionable manner.

I can think of a bunch of things that would be more productive to consider than yellow areas on the sectional.  

So Les was incorrect in saying "Ultralights to be legal have to avoid all the cities in yellow"? What other areas would you consider?

To me this sounds like a very interesting legal issue with ultralight pilots that a lawyer would LOVE to get ahold of. I've stated this earlier in the thread that I am a GIS Analyst, and maps are pretty much what I live and breathe, navigational maps (especially official ones) are needed to be kept as accurate as possible. If the yellow areas have ever been used in a court-case this could really cause some problems for the FAA. I've ran the evidence past the California Geographical Society and they have some people interested in taking a closer look at this (including some pilots in Southern California). We have a conference in May and I hope to talk to them in person about it. I am confident a grad-student could get quite a lot of valuable research about the FAA and its lackadaisical map practices. Especially if other glaring errors are to be found that have lead to or contributed to anyones death or loss of property. There is no excuse for using 30+ year old data when more current data is available, I truly hope the "populated areas" is the only issue, but then again I did find an airport that offers fuel that wasn't listed on the current map as such (that's another big mistake in my opinion). This is an issue of integrity and public safety. I think what irks me the most is that the FAA traditionally charges for these inaccurate maps and has yet let the individual layers be accessible by the general public (geo-portal).

Anywho, to stay on topic - I was originally looking for range information for the Legal Eagle (which sounds to be about 60 miles on average) so I could plan out trips with my father. The forum community highly recommended just using VFR sectionals, I found errors in those maps, so in a way I am back to where I started - planning and making my own range maps. It just bums me out that AirNav and other 3rd party sites seem to have a better database on airports than the FAA does for its VFR sectionals. These are things that could be easily fixed and maintained in ArcGIS or QGIS, so I am left questioning the FAA and the legalities for ultralights.

Re: Building - looking at possible hangar space in April, John Bolding for XL kits and pre-welded frames, I'll definitely post in the proper build section when I get to it. In the meantime I'll keep asking questions and contacting the FAA to update their maps LOL ;D

[leshoman]

Read part 103 and it states something like no flight over villages  or towns. And from what I have been told by those in the know if you like to fly lower the same location to irritate those on the ground there have been situations where two houses close together have be used for citations.  Best advice is to stay high or stay away from houses and people on ground.  In real life flying 1000 feet over a small town should not be much of a issue

[Vince Carucci]

You know… if you take off from Cape Cod with a strong tail wind, you might be able to make it to the Irish coast by morning. Maybe refuel once in Keflavik. Then you won’t have to worry about mountains or maps or populated areas. Win-win, eh!

[Sam Buchanan]

By the way, don't waste time thinking that yellow designates congested areas. It was never intended for that purpose and the FAA can call just about any area it wishes a congested area if it decides to pursue violation of a pilot (or non-pilot in the case of ultralights) that is flying in a questionable manner.

I can think of a bunch of things that would be more productive to consider than yellow areas on the sectional.  

So Les was incorrect in saying "Ultralights to be legal have to avoid all the cities in yellow"? What other areas would you consider?

To me this sounds like a very interesting legal issue with ultralight pilots that a lawyer would LOVE to get ahold of. I've stated this earlier in the thread that I am a GIS Analyst, and maps are pretty much what I live and breathe, navigational maps (especially official ones) are needed to be kept as accurate as possible. If the yellow areas have ever been used in a court-case this could really cause some problems for the FAA. I've ran the evidence past the California Geographical Society and they have some people interested in taking a closer look at this (including some pilots in Southern California). We have a conference in May and I hope to talk to them in person about it. I am confident a grad-student could get quite a lot of valuable research about the FAA and its lackadaisical map practices. Especially if other glaring errors are to be found that have lead to or contributed to anyones death or loss of property. There is no excuse for using 30+ year old data when more current data is available, I truly hope the "populated areas" is the only issue, but then again I did find an airport that offers fuel that wasn't listed on the current map as such (that's another big mistake in my opinion). This is an issue of integrity and public safety. I think what irks me the most is that the FAA traditionally charges for these inaccurate maps and has yet let the individual layers be accessible by the general public (geo-portal).

Anywho, to stay on topic - I was originally looking for range information for the Legal Eagle (which sounds to be about 60 miles on average) so I could plan out trips with my father. The forum community highly recommended just using VFR sectionals, I found errors in those maps, so in a way I am back to where I started - planning and making my own range maps. It just bums me out that AirNav and other 3rd party sites seem to have a better database on airports than the FAA does for its VFR sectionals. These are things that could be easily fixed and maintained in ArcGIS or QGIS, so I am left questioning the FAA and the legalities for ultralights.

Re: Building - looking at possible hangar space in April, John Bolding for XL kits and pre-welded frames, I'll definitely post in the proper build section when I get to it. In the meantime I'll keep asking questions and contacting the FAA to update their maps LOL ;D

Is this for real or is somebody just trolling the forum for laughs???

[Keith]

Is this for real or is somebody just trolling the forum for laughs???

For real, as a professional map maker we hold others in the industry to high standards. Your candor is not appreciated.

[Dan_]

3rd item from top on a Google search sums it up rather well...

http://footflyer.com/PPGBibleUpdates/Chapter08/congested.htm

Best practice is to keep a low profile if you don't want extra interaction with Federales.

[scottiniowa]

Excellent Dan!

to copy it here 

A side note: Yellow areas on sectional charts do not define congested areas. That myth continues to propagate but, to my knowledge, no documents support it, including court cases. Charted yellow areas are approximately what the light patterns look like at night, and they are notoriously outdated even for that purpose.

     While interesting, these charts/range have been beat to death..interesting to note, that range went from  180 miles to  60, and yet the deliberation over the “possible” inaccuracy  remained the same.  This is simply true.   What I don’t think you find wrong, is incorrect squawk codes, and you don’t want to be in those   areas anyway. 

 I will agree with Sam,  but add, that “ what you might find” you can do with your aircraft is perhaps best discussed after you find what YOU can do.  Don’t get me wrong, it is always good to plan, but to plan to the last gal or few miles of travel, well…… lets just say it almost never works out.   Not even for 152’s and up.   Getting to where you want to go, works- getting there exactly to your plans…we just don’t have that kind of bird here.

    Building it first is of the highest order, you mentioned getting all the parts from someone, and that is fine, with the lead times, better get the order done.  Heck if you can find a storage unit with an electric outlet, you may be able to make progress.  A hanger at an airport is generally only needed as the final step.

Best of success

[Steve]

More fun with Maps:  http://www.andrewt.net/blog/posts/fun-with-the-mercator-projection/

[Keith]

More fun with Maps:  http://www.andrewt.net/blog/posts/fun-with-the-mercator-projection/

I really like http://earth.nullschool.net/ for winds aloft (great planning tool) its updated every 3-hours and has lots of funky projections such as the Waterman Butterlfy and Azimuthal Equidistant (which is similar to what you posted). Just click the word "earth" in the corner to access all the options (like winds at different elevations) 

[Keith]

I had a wonderful conversation over the phone with the FAA's map maker, he confirmed that some populated areas on the VFR are 30-40 years old and that massive budget cutbacks have really affected their abilities, updates currently are complaint-based for changes. He also debunked the myth that the yellow areas were ever used for night flying - saying that was never the case.
I recommended the US Census Urban Areas as a possible alternative in the interim until they can transition to a new system. I really wish the FAA was better funded, its a shame its been cut as severely as it has.

Anywho, if anyone would like the urban areas dataset for the entire USA as well as the islands feel free to check out:
ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2014/UAC/ (84 MB) use ArcGIS, QGIS, or any other GIS platform to view and create your own maps for fun.


Example: Urban Areas in California

[scottiniowa]

 
Anywho, if anyone would like the urban areas dataset for the entire USA as well as the islands feel free to check out:
ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2014/UAC/ (84 MB) use ArcGIS, QGIS, or any other GIS platform to view and create your own maps for fun.


Example: Urban Areas in California

http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/maps/datamapper.html  might be a link that works. The other seemed to be a dead address.