Hello, I’d like to report an inaccuracy in the STAR for LICC on Fenix (in this case, an A320).
As you can see from the FMS, I have the STAR LIBR2G to NOSOM, which is the IAF for the ILS-Z approach to runway 08.
But the charts show that the STAR for NOSOM is LIBR2F, so I shouldn’t select it in the FMS, which I was able to do.
Hi,
No, it shows the path to the holdings GIGIX or NASOM. GIGIX is not an IAF; therefore, you can´t select it, and it would not make sense to select GIGIX - NASOM - ILS08 …
But I´m with you; it looks a little confusing…
Here from the AIP Italy, also not really perfect, but a little bit clearer, that these are the paths into the holdings:
That means you have two options:
- via holding (GIGX or NASOM) and from there to the ILS08
- direct via NASOM to the ILS08
That’s what the chart wants to “say” 
Hope that helps,
Richard
That’s up to the pilot not to make that mistake.
LIBR2F and LIBR2G are both STARs for runway 08, and can therefore be selected with any approaches for runway 08.
The only way the navdata could prevent you selecting LIBR2F + GIGIX (or LIBR2G + NASOM, for that matter) would be if those (LIBR* procedures) were implemented as additional approach transitions instead of STARs, which would most likely confuse pilots more than anything.
The database format used by the Fenix (but also, the ARINC 424 format used by, or as the base for, real-world databases used by IRL aircraft) do not have a way to restrict a STAR to a particular approach or approach transition, only to specific runways.
Regards,
Tim
No, that’s not correct. It might seem confusing if it only shows me the turn toward the two points. But reading the AIP aeronautical charts clearly shows which STAR the two points belong to.
There are those two different STARs, with different IAFs, because GIGIX is the IAF for VOR-Z and VOR-Y approaches, while ILS LOC and RNP approaches use NASOM as IAF
The only way the navdata could prevent you selecting LIBR2F + GIGIX (or LIBR2G + NASOM, for that matter) would be if those (LIBR* procedures) were implemented as additional approach transitions instead of STARs, which would most likely confuse pilots more than anything.
The database format used by the Fenix (but also, the ARINC 424 format used by, or as the base for, real-world databases used by IRL aircraft) do not have a way to restrict a STAR to a particular approach or approach transition, only to specific runways.
So the problem is in the FMS procedures of the fenix, because if I choose, in this case, the STAR LIBRO 2G which leads to GIGIX, I cannot choose any other approach except the VOR-Y or VOR-Z ones.
That is unexpected (at least to me); I might be unable to test the Fenix myself until next Thursday though 
While I am not 100% sure, I don’t think any such restrictions would (or could) come from the data though, but there may be additional logic implemented by the FMGS somewhere.
Regards,
Tim
I forgot this is an Airbus, you select the approach before the STAR anyway, so the above statement doesn’t make much sense, as far as I can tell.
I just updated to the latest Fenix and navdata, and was able to select ILS08-W, then LIBR2G (thus, to GIGIX).
I can also easily reconfigure to any other approach of my choice (say, an RNAV) while retaining the LIBR2G STAR, or switch to LIBR2F, insert, then back to LIBR2G and insert while retaining the selected approach; i.e. as I expected, the arrival/STAR and final approach/via are fully independent of each other.
Are you perhaps thinking of a different aircraft? Either way, please provide a detailed step-by-step procedure to reproduce your issue, and if possible provide screenshots or a video as well.
Regards,
Tim
… that’s what I also see, but honestly, GIGIX - NASOM (IAF) makes no sense because both waypoints are nearly abeam.
What is also unclear to me is what GIGIX’s function is when not acting as a holding? Why would it be designed with two waypoints that are nearly on the same place?
I don’t know the area, I don’t know how this looks in a real A320 with standard data install, but what I see is that the data are coded correctly, also in the Fenix.
Cheers
Richard
GIGIX is for VOR approaches only.
NASOM is for ILS LOC and RNP approach procedures
So the entry logic is wrong. If I enter a specific approach, the FMS should only display the STAR procedures for that specific approach, not all the STARs for the selected runway. Specifically: I chose ILS-Y 08 approach. The ILS approach has NASOM as its IAF. The FMS, instead of only showing me the STARs that end in NASOM, gives me the option of selecting any STAR for runway 08. Now, I don’t know how it actually works on an A320, but that’s what happens on the Fenix. I think I’ve figured out that it wasn’t a procedural error, but a logic problem.
Sorry for opening a topic needlessly.
The database format can basically only allow restricting STAR “compatibility” by runway, there cannot be additional conditions in the data (that I know of; Richard will be able to confirm and perhaps give specific details). Both in the sim and also IRL (with ARINC 424 based database formats, which as far as I know would be most of everything).
The logic preventing entry of a mismatching arrival and approach is called the pilot.
Regards,
Tim