Hi, I am using XP11 with Win10 and I found that the symbol of the rwy is missing in LIMJ with RNP A 10 approach. I already mentioned this topic but I would like to illustrate it once more since it is obviously a technical issue.
I think the first problem is that the RNP A 10 approach to LIMJ is represented in the FMS as RNVA and not RNVA 10. As a result the navigation display shows no rwy symbol
The two other approaches RNP Y18 to LFKC and RNPD 22R to LFMN below where the arrival is also to be done manually with view illustrate how it should be, meaning that the rwy symbol should be shown on the navigation display:
Thank you very much - I have looked on the charts and in the data. This approach doesn´t end at a runway - it ends at MJ814 and than you must fly a visual approach - it´s defined as CTL-approach (circle to land) …
Therefore, there is no runway ident available in the data. The coding itself and also the interpretation is absolutely correct.
Hi Richard, you are correct the approach does not end at a runway AS IT IS THE CASE for RNPD22R in LFMN and RNPY18 in LFKC. BUT for LFMN and LFKC, although the approach does not end at the RWY you can see the RWY symbol on the navigation display which helps a bit for the approach especially at night or if there are a few clouds… So considering that for LFMN and LFKC which have comparable approaches you can see the RWY symbol I would say that there is no reason that for LIMJ we can NOT see this rwy symbol. Can you please consider again.
Also in the FMS for LFMN and LIMJ, although the approach does not end at the rwy , the approach is called RNVY 18 or RNVD 22R (with the rwy name behind) unlike for LIMJ where the FMS shows only RNVA WITHOUT RWY DESIGNATION. If for LFMN and LFKC there is a rwy designation it should also be the case for LIMJ.
Hi,
you have given you the own answer on your screenshots.
This approach is not assigned to a specific runway in the data, therefore you see only the RNVA ident without a runway. So, my assumption is, that Zibo can´t display the runway due the missing runway - but to be sure, you should ask the Zibo dev.
The difference between the two approaches are, the straight in criteria … The last waypoint for the LFKC approaches is on the centerline of the runway, so in simple words - you have no other choice to land on 18. When you now look on the LFMN 22R approach, you see that the last waypoint (MN22D) is 90 degrees offset, so not aligned with the centerline - therefore there is a own “procedure” for that calling “visual manoeuvring” which can´t be coded in the data. And that´s exactly the difference between these two approach (for sure, in more or less simple words )
Hi Richard, Thanks for these clarifications! But as you can see on the RNP approach chart it is not said RNPA only it is said RNP A 10 with a rwy being clearly allocated to this approach. Should then this rwy not also appear in the FMC?? (Therefore RNVA 10 and not RNVA…)
… yes because it’s only valid for runway 10, but as I have explained it before, such procedures can’t be coded with a runway ident, therefore only RNVA …
)