Hi, all LPMA approaches (except RNP AR) are incorrectly coded without a runway. This got brought up with the FBW A320, which (correctly) excludes approaches without an assigned runway.
Inside the Charts application, the charts themselves correctly link each approach to their runway:
I know for a fact that these approaches are coded to their runways because, a) IRL experience, albeit with LIDO, but I would be very very surprised it’s treated differently by Jepp; and b) It would make no sense otherwise. An RNP approach can not be manually inserted, it must be loaded from a database without any changes applied. Airbus aircraft are not capable of loading an approach without a runway. Were these RNP approaches actually coded without a runway, they would be useless for Airbus operators, and the VOR approaches would need to be manually constructed every time. This is, obviously, not the case.
Lastly, uninstalling the Navigraph data and using stock MSFS 2020 data “fixes” the issue, the approaches are correctly coded to each runway on stock data.
You see very clear, that there is no runway - after the MAPT (MA566) the missed approach starts immediately . No runway - the codings are correct according the AIP Portugal as you see.
Here the directly link to the AIP, to check it by your own:
Cheers,
Richard
PS: the LIDO database is not a worldwide database, it contains only Cat C+D approaches only and the data are customized for the airlines which use the LIDO data. Jeppesen is really a worldwide database and follows the standard according the AIPs of the countries. That doesn´t mean, that LIDO is wrong, but it´s different because they have tailored records comparing to the Jeppesen records.
The coding table here also does not include the runway, aside from the name, and it also goes straight from the MAPt into the MAP. In this case the MAPt is colocated with the runway threshold. And this approach is (correctly) linked to runway 35, both in charts and in the FMS selectable approaches.
Once again, no mention of the runway within the coding table, aside from the name, and in this case the MAPt is located on the extended centerline before the runway. Again, this approach is (correctly) linked to runway 12, both in charts and in the FMS selectable approaches.
I would like to reiterate that if the LPMA approaches truly were not linked to a runway, they would be unusable, at least by Airbus operators.
Perhaps this is an edge case that is not accounted for, by the conversion tool from the actual Jepp DB into the various navigraph formats? After all, it does correctly link to the runways within the Charts app…
Hi again,
no, the coding is correct and we don’t convert anything (excluding for FSX, P3D addons) - thats what Jeppesen has in their source.
To your examples:
These are two different approach types. Your examples are straight-in approaches, which means it is clear on which runway this approach ends. The LPMA approach is a circle-to-land approach and for this kind of approach a runway is not defined.
circle to land apchs can indeed have RWY dependent procedure idents.
Looks like the circlings are twice in DB where they should only be once.
PMDG 777 example:
R05-A and RNVA.
As per state source and Jeppesen chart the RWY dependent ident is the correct one (R05-A).
FMCs prefer to have RWY dependent idents as not all support non RWY dependent circlings like RNVA.
In the coding itself, the is no need to reference the RWY. There are some add ons that require it due to developer decisions. This can create issues with Missed Approach sequencing.
Right, I have mentioned it in my previous posting - no addon in FSX nor in P3D supports procedures without at least a runway ident. Therefore we have created a workaround for such CTL approaches. The MSFS PMDG 777 uses the same DFD format, which uses P3D addons too and therefore the CTL workaround is included there too.
In the MSFS data as an example, we don´t use this workaround because the MSFS can handle procedures without runways too.
I have no idea about your reference but in our source from Jeppesen, we have only the RNVA/B or VDMA/B without any runway-idents.
Additional according JAR-OPS 1.435:
A circling approach is “the visual phase of an instrument approach to bring an aircraft into position for landing on a runway which is not suitably located for a straight-in approach”.
… and exactly that is, what I have written before … the two approaches are both “straight-in” approaches and not “circle-to-land” approaches.
But as a final conclusion here:
The procedures are coded correctly.
No, if only RNVA is in the raw file, then Jeppesen should change it to R05-A as published in the AIP and to match their own chart. Same applies to all others coded the same way. (RNVB, VORA etc)
The circling vs. straight setting in is done via the Qualifier 2: S=Straight in / C=Circling.
Actually its possible to have circlings with RWY dependents idents coded according to ARINC rules. Authorities nowdays try to publish them with RWY dependent idents to enhance fleet compatibility.
Here are some newer examples from this year. Looks like LPMA is still sitting on an older coding and should be updated when its revised the next time.
I will check, which datasets they are using … Thank you! But to be clear, when they use a airline specific dataset (what I assume) than we have no chance to request it …
