I would like to report a discrepancy in the navigation data for Arequipa (SPQU) with AIRAC 2503 (latest version). When flying the Toliss A320 in X-Plane 12, the MCDU displays the approach as LOC10 instead of ILS10, even though the official Navigraph charts indicate that Runway 10 has an ILS.
After reviewing the navigation files in X-Plane, I found that the SPQU.dat file in Custom Data contains the designation L10 instead of I10. When manually changing L10 → I10, the approach correctly appears as an ILS in the MCDU.
I would like to know if this issue originates from Navigraph’s data or if there is a conflict with how the Toliss A320 interprets navigation data in X-Plane. I have confirmed that I am using the latest AIRAC cycle (2503), so the issue is not due to outdated data. I would appreciate it if you could look into this issue and consider correcting it in future updates.
Hi Gabriel,
First of all, thank you very much for such a detailed report. This is seldom and a really perfect description of an issue. Appreciated…
To your finding,:
This approach can be flown as an ILS approach (because LOC and GS exist) but can’t be coded as an ILS approach.
The reason is that the missed approach starts before the runway threshold (at the VOR EQU), so it will be coded as an only approach. Again, this is only a coding rule; when you set the frequency, you will see that you can fly this approach as ILS.
It has nothing to do with any addon; it’s simply a coding regulation in the ARINC424 standard.
I hope that helps, and again, thanks for this excellent report
Thank you for your detailed explanation regarding the ARINC 424 coding rules. However, I would like to clarify that in the real Airbus, the approach for Runway 10 at SPQU is displayed as ILS10, not LOC10.
I am a real-world Airbus pilot, and I can confirm that the aircraft correctly captures both the Localizer (LOC) and Glideslope (GS) as an ILS approach, just as indicated in the official charts. This suggests that the current Navigraph dataset may be unnecessarily restrictive in its application of the ARINC 424 rule.
The issue is that in the Toliss A320 for X-Plane, when the approach is coded as LOC10, the aircraft does not detect the GS, making it impossible to perform an ILS approach as it is done in real life. If the actual Airbus correctly shows ILS10, shouldn’t the Navigraph data reflect this as well?
Could you please verify whether this approach is being restricted unnecessarily? If possible, it would be helpful to align the Navigraph data with how the real-world Airbus FMS handles this approach.
Hi,
Necessary or unnecessary, our data supplier doesn’t include it as it is contrary to ARINC424 rules. Possibly you use airline-specific tailored data, with extended information for such approaches that makes the coding possible, but not via the standard.
I understand the ARINC 424 restrictions, but in the real Airbus FMS, this approach is displayed as ILS10, and the glideslope (GS) is captured correctly. In the Toliss A320, since it is coded as LOC10, the GS is not detected, making the ILS approach impossible to fly as it should be.
What solution do you recommend to correct this issue in the simulator?