Not sure if anyone’s noticed, but a radial intercept seems to be missing from the missed approach procedure for this instrument approach (refer RJTT chart 11-12). The missed approach procedure requires a left turn at 500 feet to intercept the 177 radial of the Haneda VOR, then proceed outbound via this radial to URAGA. However, on the PMDG 737 (not sure if this is an add-on specific issue), there is no ‘radial intercept’ waypoint between 500 feet and URAGA. As a result, the aircraft just turned left at 500 feet & tracked direct to URAGA, with the resulting track being a few degrees off 177. I have noticed similar issues with other instrument approach procedures, particularly those in Japan, where VOR radial intercepts are common in missed approaches.
Is there a fix being planned for this?
For the MSFS 737-800 FMC I show the following for ILS-Z-34L
That seems to be correct data for “Climb on heading 337 degrees to 500’ , turn Left climb to 4500’ outbound via VOR R-177 to UTIBO” ?
Thanks for your reply.
The published missed approach procedure requires the pilot to first intercept the Haneda 177 degree radial, then fly outbound via that radial to URAGA, then to UTIBO. Therefore tracking 171 to URAGA would not be correct. Please see the attached extract from the approach plate:
this is a limitiation in the PMDG syntax sorry. You can´t code an intercept after a altitude constraint and that´s exactly here the case.
The first point is a fly-altitude on course 337 / 500 ft after that intercept …
And this statement is not possible to “translate” 1:1 into the PMDG syntax - therefore the “DIRECT TO” workaround. Sorry, that´s a PMDG limitation but we are working very closely with PMDG to update this very old format to a new more modern format which will support such cases too in the future.
Thanks for your reply & for clarifying that this is a technical issue.
Just a quick follow-up question though: For RJAA ILS 34L, it seems like the PMDG is able to take two conditional waypoints in succession. Is there a technical issue specific to RJTT?
Sorry, my mistake - please excuse me, I have looked on the wrong approach …
No, no you´re right this cases are possible to code - sorry for that. The problem at RJTT is another one:
The missed approach mentioned “via URAGA to UTIBO” and that means you must code as CF (course to fix) before the UTIBO in the FMC. There is no other possibility when you don´t want to loose the information “via URAGA”.
That´s exactly the case, why this procedure is so coded …
Thanks for your reply.
I had a quick go at coding the radial intercept according to the missed approach procedure, and it seems like it is achievable:
Please let me know if this could be implemented in your next AIRAC update. Many thanks!
Yes, it can be coded as you shown it but you made a manual change I guess because you use the waypoint URAGA as reference after the intercept.
According the AIP Japan and the charts, its UTIBO ans this is coded exactly in the data. So this change must be done via the AIP Japan.
Thanks for your reply. I guess we will just have to wait & see if the wording of the procedure changes then.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.