CRJ SID with vectors results in first waypoint being the last one

[theclumsygeek]

Can you guys help test if you can reproduce this bug in the CRJ:

1. Enter flight plan from KMCO to anywhere (e.g. KORD).
2. For departure, choose runway 18L and the JAG6 SID.
3. Go to the legs page and verify that legs are VECTORS to GUANO to MATEO.

In my case, for #3 I get some weird stuff. It results in VECTORS to MATEO to GUANO, with discontinuities right before and right after GUANO.

I am able replicate this issue in other airports as long as the SID has vectors initially, and the longer the SID the more wrong it becomes, as the first waypoint essentially becomes the last waypoint in the SID.

I am using the Navigraph FMS Data manual download for the CRJ. I have a friend who also has the CRJ but not the Navigraph FMS Data, and he was able to load the SID just fine.

[theclumsygeek]

Here are some images after entering runway 18L and JAG6 departure.
Legs page 1:

Legs page 2:

Fpln page 2:

[NAVDataOld]

Hi Ian,
thanks for the report - I think this is due the different codings between the Aerosoft data and our data.

Here the Aerosoft data:
SID,JAG6,18R,1
VM,0.00000000,0.00000000,0,185,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
DF,ORL,28.54272222,-81.33501389,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,

… and here our data:
SID,JAG6,18R, 1
CA,0,185.0,2,500,0,0,0,0,0,0,
VM,0,0,0,185.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
CF,GUANO,29.099647,-81.388592,0,ORL,355.2,33.5,355.0,34.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,

The difference is the “course to altitude” leg (second line in our data) … When you look on the charts, you see that these SID requires takeoff minimus (see takeoff obstacle notes). Jeppesen codes this with a “course to altitude” to be safe … and it looks like that Aersoft doesn´t code this. Both are correct, but the Aerosoft CRJ interprets the data in a differ way. Therefore, please report this to the Aerosoft forum - only Aerosoft can fix this.

As you see, the procedure is correct and (excl. this CA leg) identically … possible that this is a CRJ limitation, I don´t know but it´s correct from the data perspective.

Cheers,
Richard

[JKTech]

Looks like it has been fixed with the new CRJ 1.0.0.1 update.

[theclumsygeek]

Thank you for the explanation Richard.

Thanks for testing JKTech. I can confirm. Update 1.0.0.1 fixed this now.