Tested with clear sky preset too. At least three whites on PAPI following the glideslope.
Hi,
I don’t think Navigraph defines scenery PAPI position in its NavData updates. It is a scenery parameter.
Now, on large international airports, there is frequently a difference in GS vs PAPI position so as to take into account differences between eyes height and wheels height, the PAPI glide path being always higher then the landing wheels. In particular, when the glide path crosses the threshold at 50 ft, the wheels are a bit lower. Unfortunately the simulator doesn’t take into account eye height position for PAPI indication
So, such a divergence is not abnormal in the present case
For information LFPG ILS27L glide slope antenna is located 1130 ft ahead of runway theshold while PAPI is at 1650 ft from it. This explains what you observed
Hope it will help
Hervé
But descending via the glideslope in this case will land me in the middle of the runway far off the aiming point. I’d still be at 100ft AGL passing over the aiming point.
Hi again,
it seems you have a general issue with your system and/or handling of your PMDG addon, because also here - I can´t reproduce it - the same as in your report here (KSEA 16L ILS issue)
Here a few screenshots in the same configuration - no weather, night:
1000f … two red, two white
500ft … two red, two white - exactly on the glideslope:
So, Hervé is absolutely correct with his answer. It´s first the position of your seat and second the differences between PAPI and GS antenna.
Compare the altitude with the charts, and you see that this is exactly the same. You see on the PFD 440 feet, on the chart you see the TCH displaced threshold 56’. So 440 - 56 = 384 feet … exactly the runway height.
At threshold, according my PFD in the PMDG 737 - at 440 feet:
Hope that helps,
Richard
Here at 100AGL you can clearly see I’m BELOW the glideslope and getting 4 whites. This can’t be simply an aircraft or weather issue. Should I just try to reinstall navigraph entirely?
Please read the answer from Herve and my posting again. The GS is displaced as you see on the charts, therefore it looks too high …
As in your KSEA posting, thats not a navdata issue, thats reality - I would also highly recommend, that you look more on the charts …
Thank you
Richard
Can you explain to me what TCH displaced threshold means? At baro 440ft I’m already over the aiming point not the threshold. I’m not sure why all of this will make my main gear touchdown in the middle of the runway.
Here two examples:
LOWW 11:
LFPG 27L:
The red-lines are the position where the glideslope “ends” (+ x feet crossing height) … the yellow line(s) are the real runway-threshold. The normal case is, that the GS cross the runway threshold at height x (LOWW at 54 feet) but not in LFPG, here the GS is displaced and that means you are higher on the real runway-threshold as normal.
At LOWW 11 you have a height of 54 feet at the threshold, at LFPG 27L you have approx. 100 feet at the runway threshold. So now what have this todo with the PAPIs …
Here a screenshot on the runway threshold at approx. 90-100 feet.
The red line is the line where the GS antenna is located … but the PAPIs are not on the same line as usual … they are ahead of the GS antenna. Thats what Hervé had written … the PAPIs are approx. 500 feet ahead the antenna and therefore the 3-4 white … because the antenna is before the PAPI and the system means you´re to high.
… and here approx. (not 100% exact) at the TCH crossing height (56 feet)
You see the antenna on the right - it´s nearly abeam to the aircraft.
Here my autoland touchdown point (red line = GS antenna, green line PAPIs):
Cheers,
Richard
Okay that makes more sense since I pass through 440 right over the aiming point. I was confused when you say you passed through threshold at 440.
1 Like
I’m sorry to disturb you guys again but I did another landing on 27R which has a regular TCH. I still passed over the threshold at 100ft. I’m seriously confused now.
I also tried 26L and it was perfect. 26R and 27R are displaced so 100ft over threshold is normal as you said earlier. I’m not sure what happened on my approach to 27R.
Hi again,
I can´t answer your question 100% - because when you look on your PFD on the RA you see approx 440 feet - that means you´re exactly on the GS because the TCH (treshold crossing alt) is 54 feet, the runway elevation is according the charts 392 feet so you should have 392 + 54 = 446 feet at the threshold.
I have now checked the MSFS with the default data and here, you have exactly the same effect - with 3rd party aircrafts like the PMDG or any in-game aircrafts like the A320 or any Garmin device aircrafts. So, my assumption is any issue on the scenery itself rather then a navdata issue.
Again, exactly the same happens when you remove our data, when you use the stock data. The coordinates of the different antenna´s, the runway coordinates, … are absolutely correct. So, the only “unknown” thing here is the scenery itself … possible ASOBO/MS can answer this because this happened here with their data too.
Cheers,
Richard
Thanks, I have just read the same in the release notes but haven´t tested it till now …
… on the other hand I can´t really believe that this was a “terraforming issue” 
… but we will see 
Cheers,
Richard
They didn’t fix anything regarding 27R. I’ll just try not to use that runway when I fly to LFPG for the time being.
1 Like
Richard is correct. I don’t think the “terraformation” as anything to do with that
I don’t have MSFS. Is there a way to check the coded PAPI distance from runway displaced threshold in the MSFS scenery?
-H
This topic was automatically closed 2 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.