The following approach can be setup and placed in a flight plan on the desktop tool, but does not exist in MSFS when flight plan is loaded or when trying to select in G1000 in a C182. I am running AIRAC 2408 rev 1.
Hi,
Possible, that this aircraft isn’t certified for this approach. When you try it in the stock A320 as an example, which uses exactly the same MSFS data as the G1000.
So, it looks more a G1000 limitation with this approach. The approach itself is in the data, as you see ie. in the default A320.
Hope that helps
Richard
Thanks, I just loaded the flight plan with this approach again and tried with the A320, 787 and a TBM. In the MSFS flight planning screen after loading the plan this approach does not show up and it cannot be selected. I’ve flown hundreds of approaches for practice in the C172 and C182 with the G1000 and this is the first time I’ve ever seen this.
Thanks,
Mark
Hi. I don’t think the default MSFS data has any procedures for this airport. If I disable Navigraph data and look in Little Nav Map, it can’t find any procedures.
Thanks, I have also tried this in the TBM and the approach does not pull up in the flight planning in the Garmin system there either. I figured it should just show in the MSFS flight planning tool after loading the plan as it uses the Navigraph AIRAC, but tried the Garmin in the TBM too, so it’s a different Garmin in a different plane to check. Seems odd a TBM wouldn’t be certified for the approach even if the 182 was not. This is the first ever approach I’ve seen this across hundreds in the 172 and 182.
I’ll have a look tomorrow. I love a challenge…
Neil.
On the XBX (so no Navigraph data) there are two SIDs but no arrivals in the A320 V2. The FSR500 only shows visual approaches. Note: the FSR500 uses a JavaScript API whilst the A320 uses a WASM API which can sometimes lead to differences but in this case the data just isn’t present. I’ll try on my PC next as that has the Navigraph data.
It’s the same story in MSFS on the PC. Digging a bit deeper, In Navigraph charts I only see RWY 29/11 but looking at the airport chart it shows both runways but each with the same designation of 29/11 (no L or R).
In Little NavMap, using only MSFS data I see both runways with 29L/11R as hard surface. Switching to the Navigraph only data I just see 11/29.
When switching to use Navigraph for Navaids and Procedures I get the following warning:
Hopefully one the Navigraph gurus can make some sense of it…
Cheers, Neil.
Hi Neil,
Thats not really an issue on our side, it’s the MSFS, it is outdated and doesn’t reflect the real world.
According the AIP New Zealand, NZWF doesn’t have 11L/29R … This airport has only 11/29 as in our data. In real there are two 11/29 runways but this can’t be handled by the MSFS and therefore it seems, ASOBO/MS add the L/R designator on this airport. But again, this is wrong against the AIP.
So, please report this to ASOBO/MS … We offer real world data and we can’t handle the internal logic of the sim.
Cheers
Richard
Hi I was just having a look on the OPs behalf. It doesn’t affect me. I’m sure the 2024 updates will sort it out.
Cheers,Neil.
Thanks to you both for looking into this. It would be great if the sim allowed complete replacement of the navigation data and had some fall-back mechanism for aligning conflicts when they exist, such as around airport specifications that may misalign. I’ve flown into a few airports that aren’t in MSFS by default but showed up as runways only by using the Navigraph data. Probably easier to allow an insert of something that does not exist, versus align different data sets. As noted, a request for ASOBO/MS.
If you want to try and know how to run Python, I added a fix for the main runway to the example configuration of my script I linked here.
Someone in the Working Title Discord suggested that the fastest way to notify the Asobo developers of outdated data (e.g. old runway identifiers) might be to report it via their Zendesk:
https://flightsimulator.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests/new
Regards,
Tim
This topic was automatically closed 2 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.