I have the yearly subscription for Navigraph and have also downloaded the most current AIRAC 2605. The FAA was evaluating my sim (Xplane-12 Cessna 172 G-1000) and noticed that the FPL for KORL RWY 07 ILS did not match the approach plate in ForeFlight (I also subscribe to). I checked the all latest Navigraph files were in the X-Plane Custom Data folder and even reinstalled them. No change. I decided to download the FAACIFP18 file, which is currently using 2605, into the Custom Data folder and it fixed my problem. My question is, why isn’t the most current Navigraph FMS Data download matching since I thought it also uses the most current AIRAC cycle? Please help. I don’t want to have to use the FAA file if I’m paying for NAVIGRAPH.
So we can replicate, could you please be more specific about the steps you took and the issues you experienced when using the FMS Data Manager to install the X-Plane 12 Navigation Data update?
I start out my flight on the ground at KORL RWY 07 (Executive)
I setup an ILS Approach to RWY 07 with Vectors.
I also run ForeFlight on my IPad and bring up the Airport (KORL).
I compare the approach plate in ForeFlight to the FPL in X Plane and it doesn’t match what I should do for the approach. See pictures attached (ForeFlight KORL RWY 07 Approach Plate.jpg and X-Plane 12 RWY 07 FPL.jpg).
I download the FAA file, FAACIFP18 and put it in the Custom Data Folder for X-Plane 12.
Then bring up the FPL and ForeFlight. See picture for X-Plane FPL attached (X-Plane 12 RWY 07 FPL_FAA.jpg).
This is representative of what I should be seeing using Navigraph data and I don’t understand why there’s a difference between Navigraph data and FAA data.
I deleted all the data in my Custom Folder and redownloaded the current Air Cycle from Navigraph and have the same results. Looks good with FAA data, not good with Navigraph data.
Hi John,
Sorry for the delay. Ian forwarded the message to me and asked me to take a look. The difference is the approach type. Jeppesen codes this approach as an ILS approach, while the FAA (it seems) codes it as a LOC approach.
You can fly it as ILS or as LOC; therefore, DNMOR and SWLTR are necessary, but only for the LOC approach, not for the ILS approach. In other words, when you code it as LOC (as the FAA does), you need DNMOR and SWLTR. When you code this as ILS (as Jeppesen does), you don´t need it, and therefore, there are no differences.
But all in all, both screenshots are valid and equal - one shows the LOC approach, one the ILS - the result should be the same.
Does this answer your question? Please don´t hesitate to ask again if something is still unclear. It´s a simple coding rule in the ARINC424 standard - the approaches are equal.
I’m still not clear. I attached two pictures. I took one with only Navigraph running, then the other with the FAA data file running. I have more options in the FAA data file for RWY 07 at KORL as the example. Why don’t I have the same choices with Navigraph?
Because the FAA coded the ILS and the LOC separately, Jeppesen does not - they only code the higher part, in this case, the ILS, because you can fly the ILS as a LOC approach, but not and LOC as an ILS approach.
You can´t compare FAA with any other data provider 1:1 because there are many different non-standard rules, naming conventions, … and every data provider uses their own provider-specific rules.
But as I wrote before, according to the charts (FAA and Jeppesen), the data are correct and complete so far.
One last question. I deleted the FAA data file and cleared out my custom data folder and downloaded the Navigraph 2605 data back into it. I also updated my Foreflight with Jeppesen charts.
I loaded up KORL RWY 07 ILS procedure and compared between the Jeppesen approach plate and the FPL in X-Plane12.
Most looks like it’s tracking except why don’t I see the 520 ft shown in X-plane using the Navigraph data in the Jeppesen plate?
I see the INTC 020 but at OVIDO it shows 056 degrees and not 049 degrees as in the Jeppesen chart?
Just trying to understand if there’s a certain amount of “plus or minus” allowed in the degrees and height call outs.
Hi John,
The reason is also that there is an ARINC424 rule behind. Some leg path types require different follow-up legs or previous leg types. Additionally, it could also be a safety margin/minimum due to any obstacle or similar, because the next waypoint also has an altitude restriction.
