Jump to content

What and What Not to Report as of v1.33?

Recommended Posts

Hi @tkyler & @Litjan,

If I understand correctly, the V1.33 update included the ability for the CDU to display potential block altitudes at fixes. However, I do notice quite often that when I load STARs in the FMC, the altitude's depicted over fixes on charts don't always match up with what is being displayed on the CDU.

My question is, would you like us to post those occurrences here similar to the way we've been posting Gizmo errors?

The latest example I can give was a flight with planned cruise of FL320 into KLAS. I set up the SITEE4 arrival out of GGAPP, which the chart lists as at or above 23000 (FL230), but the CDU displayed my cruise at FL330.

Another occasional occurrence has been missing data at fixes along a STAR before reaching the runway (i.e., ABCDE ---/-----). I know when all the fixes lack data it's because the FMC was not loaded correctly/completely, but the example I'm describing shows the fixes before and after with the calculated VNAV data.

Last scenario for now, should we report erroneous lateral RNAV course depictions? Many times it depicts curved lateral paths as charted, other times not. Example: I flew into KMSO on the RNAV runway 30 out of PIXIE, which takes us straight to ROKNY then WAMIS, then a curved path to TUFFY. This depicted a straight path between WAMIS and TUFFY instead of curved.  However, when flying into runway 32 at KMFR via the RNAV out of SAMIE, it did a very nice job depicting the curved path from RURTE all the way to FILPU.

Should we report these?


Edited by Torbinator
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Torbinator,

in general the first thing we do when we get these report is check the underlying nav data that is being used. We would need to know the provider (Aerosoft or Navigraph) and the navdata cycle.

Quite often the data is not correct in the dataset - or the user is looking at outdated charts, or updated charts with outdated navdata ;-) You can often see this yourself if you look for the corresponding .xml file in the navdataset and then do a textsearch for SITEE4. You can probably read the xml and see if the altitude of 230 or above is encoded there.

This is what it looks like in Navigraph data:

      <Star_Transition Name="GGAPP">
        <StarTr_Waypoint ID="1">

I can see that the 230A is present (also in Aerosoft) and I can confirm that it is not depicted in our FMS when I load the STAR, so it is probably a bug in our software. This will receive close scrutiny in the VNAV rewrite, so it is probably not necessary to report these problems now.


The curved approach problem depends on the RNAV capability of the (old) 737-300 Classic. It is not capable of RF approaches (radius-to-fix) - which defines the circle to be flown. Therefore when you see these letters on an approach chart: RNP AR APCH, RF required - it can not be flown with our aircraft- in fact I can not even fly ith with our modern A320s, we can not fly AR (authorization required) approaches, but we can fly RF, of course.

I think for now there are normally alternative RNP procedures provided, because many older planes can´t fly RF.

I will talk to Tom, maybe we can add that capability to keep our plane abreast of modern development, I am not sure if the real Classics still flying are capable of those approaches, though.

Cheers, Jan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...