Hi,
I’ve been trying to get this SID working as per the charts. LPFR has a SID NARTA7E for RWY 10 and NARTA7U for RWY 28. According to the charts and the Map the plane should fly to waypoint VFA first. However, whether I use LittleNavMap or try entering this SID into the iniBuilds A310 in MSFS, the only VFA both recognize is the Faro VORDME (VFA). There is no VFA waypoint near Faro (LPFR).
I double checked the map (in charts app) and clicked on the waypoint VFA. The lat/long coordinates were different from the VOR. I entered a userpoint in LNM (using the current AIRAC cycle) and copy/pasted the coordinates I got from the charts app. The userpoint was approx. 1.4 nm from the VFA VOR and at the same location as shown in the Navigraph charts app.
Hi,
please can you show us the waypoint VFA because we don’t have this waypoint, VFA is a VORDME and will be used as reference for the intercepts of these SIDs.
I also can’t see, why this waypoint should be the first because also here, we don’t have this nor do you see/read this on our charts.
Here from our charts, green the instruction how you should fly the initial climb. There is only a intercept but no wird about a direct VFA. When you look on the charts you will also see, that this can’t really be possible.
Hi,
thank you … this is a calculated (fictive) waypoint which shows you the first segment, which is a “Heading to an Altitude” … in this case fly runway heading till 430 feet above … depending now on the aircraft, the climb rate, … this “waypoint” can only be fictive …
So, this waypoint doesn´t exist in real because you can´t fly a turn immediately after the take off - therefore the minimum alt of 430 feet or above. You see this also in the A310 FMC:
Thank you. Yes, that is exactly as it was during my flights. I’ll jump into the simulator and confirm this because I think the simulator or the aircraft treats this fictive waypoint as actually being the VRA VORDME. Atleast in the Littlenavmap I can confirm that this is the case:
Looks like the aircraft cannot handle the CI-IF-TF combination properly which is often used as CI-CF replacement during ARINC 424 coding to avoid long CF-Legs. So its an aircraft issue and not a database issue as it is a valid ARINC 424 combination and Little Nav Map draws it accordingly. The IF (VFA) is not used as “active” waypoint in that scenario.
Is it only drawn wrong or does it also fly it wrong? Airborne logic might be different than what is projected on ground.
If aircrafts do not support CI-IF-TF (since it interprets the IF (VFA) as active waypoint), CI-CF should be used as replacement or aircraft developer should implement CI-IF-TF properly.
He is right and as you see specially in our charts with the calculated altitude waypoint, that the data are correct.
As Jan-Paul mentioned, the logic how the data will be interpreted is in the hand of the 3rd party addon developer and not in our hands. We only offer the data and the data are correct but it seems the interpretation in the aircraft is wrong or as Jan-Paul wrote, possible not implemented.
Again, this is not a navdata issue, the initial question about the VFA waypoint is still answered. Please report your issue with a possible wrong path on you ND to the 3rd party aircraft developer.
