I noticed in ml China the choice of region code for waypoints and navaid is not consistent.
Airports appear to be assigned codes based on the administrative regions.
However waypoints and Navaids in these areas do not have matching codes. Ex: KAGAK in ZY instead of ZB, GLB VOR in ZG instead of ZU. This is probably something only Jeppesen can change…
Navblue/LH also appears confused as all ZU WPs have the ZP identifier.
However, if the assumption is that the code assignment is based on FIR instead of region, then ZUAL should be ZWAL for example.
Hi,
China is a particular case for data providers because the public information is limited and, therefore, possibly not 100% accurate.
But, as you can see, that has nothing to do with the data provider itself; the information from the country used to verify the data is missing or at least limited.
Anyway, thank you for your posting.
Cheers
Richard
PS: I have changed the subject a little bit because we have talked here from China only
Hi,
In jeppesen data, Chinese airports (and its terminal asset) assigned by administrative regions (percisely, first two letters), but enroute facilities normally assigned by FIR.
Waypoints like OTBUL, ADGOL, D247Q and FIxx etc. are weird with their ICAO code. Same for SARUL, IKARU, HLD, UC.
Therefore, I’ve submit a Case to Jeppesen NavServices, hope they will find out why.
Interesting, because Jeppesen uses ZU for enroute navaids and points, which is not related to a FIR. Yeah, this is all very confusing. Thank you both for your answers!
In accordance with ICAO Doc 7910 Location Indicators, Jeppesen will be adding a new ICAO
Code “ZU”, which will be included in all affected records located within the area covered by following airspace boundaries:
Lhasa CTA (ZULS)
Chengdu CTA (ZUUU)
Guiyang CTA (ZUGY)
This document serves as the contractually required advanced notification of the changes within Jeppesen’s NavData for Cycle 1311, effective 17 October 2013.
That’s why enroute things in ZUXX has a ICAO code ZU.
