Hello ! Would you please have a look at LFSB SIDs and check them all? A lot of SID are not up to date(validity number, missing SIDs)
Please find attached the reference of the French AIP : https://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/documents/htmlshow?f=dvd/eAIP_06_AUG_2026/FRANCE/home.html
Thanks in advance 
The main reason RWY15 departures may look missing is because of where they are published. A number of LFSB’s RNAV SIDs are not part of the permanent AD2 section of the AIP, they are temporary suppliments, which are being trialled before any permanent commitment.
TORPA, MOROK and ELBEG RNAV SIDS have run this way through a series of supplements and are not guaranteed to appear in a given AIRAC cycle in the same way a permanent AD2 procedure is.
Two other points, the current cycle added ENZAH1A, DEDJU1D and IVAFI1P, but those are reserved for the Swiss Air Rescue.
RWY33 SID LASAT7N was withdrawn.
Just to be sure, can you confirm which SIDS you see as missing or outdated?
Hi Gordon,
A number of LFSB’s RNAV SIDs are not part of the permanent AD2 section of the AIP
The current Navigraph SID that you are talking about are most likely the SUP AIP ones, which were experimental (link just above). and I did not know.
What is published on the current AIP is different and therefore seem to be the new ones, that’s my interpretation. What do you think? Here are the current SIDs for RWY15 available in the following section: AD 2 LFSB.AD 2.24 Cartes relatives à l’aérodrome
On the SUP AIP link just above you have the email of the ATM section, it’s probably worth contacting them in order to make sure we got this right? Again, I am not 100% after reviewing the SUP AIP. Publishing those kind of SUP AIP for more than a year without publishing it in the current AIP is weird…
In my opinion, here’s the list of change for the current AIRAC:
SIA RWY 15 : ELBEG7S / LASAT7S /TORPA7S / MOROK7S / LUMEL7S / OLBEN7S / OLBEN7Y
Navigraph RWY15 : LUMEL8S / MOROK 8T/ TORPA 8T / ELBEG8B / OLBEN8S / OLBEN 8Y /
→ Changes needed :
ELBEG8B → ELBEG7S
LASAT7S procedure missing
TORPA8T → TORPA7S
MOROK8T → MOROK7S
LUMEL8S → LUMEL7S
OLBEN8S → OLBEN7S
OBLEN8Y → OLBEN7Y**
**
Let me know your thoughts, thanks 
I’ll check on my side of I can have more info on it
Hi,
One comment:
The number of procedures is ALWAYS increasing and NOT decreasing.
Means, 8S is newer than 7S … I can’t currently say why the AIP shows the 7S from Oct 21, but it is very, very likely that this page is outdated because the last change was in 01-2026 according to the data source.
Cheers
Richard
As Richard mentions, SID revisions only ever increase, so the series 8 (TORPA8T, MOROK8T, ELBEG8B, LUMEL8S, OLBEN 8S/8Y is newer than the series 7, not older. The RWY15 RNAV SID page you found is dated AMDT 10/21(Oct21) and it looks like that particular page has not been refreshed to reflect the current procedures.
Our latest data shows the last actual change to these SIDs were in January 26, as Richard also points out. The 8 to 7 changes you mention would actually move back to the superseded 2021 routings.
Unfortunately, SIA are the only ones who could explain, however it doesn’t point to an error in our data.
Alright! It makes sense indeed! Thank you very much for your help guys! French bureaucracy then…
That interpretation cannot be correct, because the document you suggest contains “new” procedures is dated 07 October 2021. That and Richard’s point that new procedures always have a nigher number than the one they replace (except in the case of 9 → 1 when you reach the “end of the loop”).
Based on the wording of the SUP document:
EVALUATION DESCRIPTION
I imagine the reason why the older departures are still published is because they may possibly remain applicable to non-RNAV equipped aircraft? It’s not particularly clear.
Regards,
Tim
P.S. while the header of the SUP mentions only TORPA 8T, MOROK 8T, ELBEG 8B by name, the rest of the document goes on to define LUMEL 8S, OLBEN 8S and OLBEN 8Y as well.
Edit: I apparently missed Gordon’s second reply when writing this, my post looks a bit redundant when accounting for it.
That being said, I guess the applicability of the older procedures to non-RNAV aircraft may be valid (one thing I noticed but did not mention, is the the IFPS route/flightplan validation tool still accepts the old identifiers – in addition to the new ones – possibly confirming that they are not withdrawn entirely).
