Due to a recent change the transitions in EDDL are now open-ended. While the Navigraph charts reflect that change, the FMS Data doesn’t (At least in XP11) and still has the turn to final.
If a recent change, it may be a timing issue. Please check with AIRAC 2102 releasing Thursday.
maybe you have an example for us? Which transition is differ to the charts, that we can check it with 2102 as Ian mentioned.
All transitions ending in 05 or 23 are affected. In particular those are: BIKMU05, DOMUX05, ELDAR05, HALME05, LMA05, PISAP05, BIKMU23, DOMUX23, HALME23, LMA23 and PISAP23.
Those are listed in the FMC as BIK05, DOM05, ELD05, HAL05, LMA05, PIS05, BIK23, DOM23, HAL23, LMA23 and PIS23 respectively.
For all 23 transitions having the downwind to the north(PISAP, LMA, BIKMU and HALME) After DL430 the transition continues open ended, while the NavData has a turn towards DL450.
For DOMUX23 which has the downwind to the south after DL410 it’s open ended, while the NavData has a turn towards DL450
For all 05 transition with a downwind to the north(PISAP, LMA, BIKMU and HALME) after DL530 the transition continues open ended, while the NavData has a turn to DL550.
For all 05 transitions with a downwind to the south(ELDAR and DOMUX) after DL510 the transition is open ended, while the NavData has a turn to DL550.
I’m using AIRAC 2102 and yesterday discovered that there’s still a downwind turn to final, at least for my yesterdays transition DOMUX 05. It’s also easily visible in the FMCs Route Preview in the Navigation Display of e.g. Toliss A321.
Ah gents, now I have understood you, sorry … the reason why this VIA doesn´t end in a vector is a ARINC424 coding-rule. It is simple not possible to end an approach-transition into a “manual termination” (=vector). According these specifications for transitions for Localizer Based Approach procedures, following ending legs are valid: AF, CF, RF, TF, HF, HM, PI, CI, VI … but VM or FM (which indicates a vector) are not valid end-legs. Therefore these transitions are coded without this “open-end”.
Hope that helps,
thanks for the clarification, however in EDDM the transitions are also open ended(e.g. ROKIL26) and those are correctly in the NavData for XP11
Yep, but the different here is, that this is not the last waypoint in our database - the last waypoint for the ROK08 transitions are MAGAT or for ROK26 it´s NELBI. Both are none vector legs, the vector leg is before at DM420 for 08//DM429 for 26 and that can be coded according the rules.
As I wrote before, only such legs can´t be coded, when the end-leg for approach transition (route type A) is a vector leg. When this vector leg is somewhere else in the approach-transition, this is no problem.
I wouldn’t argue about the data model, I just wanted to make sure we’re really talking about the same thing here. As already mentioned by Luca0208, the approach in Munich is not only similar but pretty much identical when looking into the charts.
EDDM <=> EDDL
ROKIL08 <=> DOMUX05
DM420 <=> DL510
DM430, DM431, MAGAT <=> DL550, DL555, NATOS
I don’t really get the difference here?
no, no we are speaking from the same and I have again cross-checked it … the main point is, that for EDDM I have a “vector” at DM420 for the ROK08, MAGAT is a “course to fix” BUT for EDDL I have no vector at DL510 … but it should and of course it could because DL510 is somewhere in the middle of the DOM05 transition. After that I have DM550, DL555, DIKMI
I have now looked several times between the charts and the data and I assume now you´re all right and the vector leg type is missing at EDDL. We will try to ask Jeppesen, if there is a reason for that, or someone had made a mistake during the update of this transition. Give me a little bit of time, we will check this …
Anyway, thanks for all of that info …
Great. Looking forward to an update on this.
This topic was automatically closed 5 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.