LPPT FMS Data missing points after PESEX

Hello.

On the ILS for RWY 02 at LPPT there are two points after the IAP “PESEX” that aren’t displayed on the FENIX A320 for MSFS with the current data: “NETVO” and “OKNIB”.

NETVO is particularly important since it’s usually used for short approaches.

Both points appear on the official AIP package charts.

The same happens for runway 20. After the IAP “UPKAT” (which appears) the point “ROKOB” is missing.

I can show you the official AIP charts for confirmation, if there’s any need to cross-check the points.

Best regards,

Pedro Carvalho

Hi Pedro,

This is an ILS approach. An ILS approach follows the LOC and GS and not a path from waypoint to waypoint.

All these waypoints are included but will not be used by an ILS approach. As you wrote, they are necessary for a short cut/short approach, then you fly a “direct-to” followed by the ILS or a visual approach.

Cheers
Ian

I understand that. But the waypoints are indeed depicted at the chart as part of the ILS procedure and they are useful.
If you are vectored for an 8 mile final and receive a direct to NETVO (which used to be the IAP for the procedure, a few years ago) you have nothing to quickly sequence into the FMS since it would require inserting a DCT to a point which (by the FMS point of view) is not part of the ILS procedure, plus manually cleaning all the waypoints left behind.
If the NETVO and OKNIB points were included in the database as part of the ILS procedure (as they correctly are in the chart) none of this would be an issue…
Anyway, thank you for the reply.
Best regards,
Pedro Carvalho

Pedro, according the coding standard ILS rules - there is no waypoint allowed on the final to the threshold. So, these waypoints are reference waypoints ie. for short-approaches, for distances, … a “direct to xxx” is a very common way and very fast to enter in the FMC.

And yes, these waypoints must be shown on the charts because when you get a direct, and when they are missing you have no clear idea, where this waypoint is … so, it´s necessary on the charts but again, this is not a part of an ILS approach.

Again, that´s not a coding issue, a navdata issue or similar else it´s a rule …

Cheers,
Richard

Ok, I understand the explanation. I thought it was a coding decision.

Thank you for your time and keep up the good work!

This topic was automatically closed 2 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.