We like to ask you to log-in or to create an account if you don't have an account. Being a member of this forum allows you to post messages and gives you access to the free downloads. It is by far the fastest way to get any support for the many products we sell. Creating an account is fast and easy, certainly if you already have a Twitter or Facebook account. Do note we take your privacy very serious and will never allow any other company to access your information.
Wir bitten Sie, sich mit Ihren Log-in Daten im Forum anzumelden oder sich einen neuen Account anzulegen falls Sie noch über keinen verfügen. Als Mitglied des Forums können Sie Ihre Mitteilungen an andere Mitglieder oder an uns posten und Sie erhalten Zugriff auf kostenlose Downloads. Außerdem ist die Nutzung unseres Forums bei weitem der schnellste Weg um Support für die vielen Produkte zu bekommen, die wir verkaufen. Einen Account zu erstellen geht einfach und schnell, vor allem wenn Sie bereits bei Twitter oder Facebook registriert sind. Sie können sicher sein, dass wir die Privatsphäre unserer Mitglieder schätzen und schützen. Es wird keiner weiteren Firma gestattet Einsicht in Ihre Daten zu nehmen.
Interests:Aviation, Photography, Design, Art, Programming, Friends, Movies
Posted 05 June 2012 - 23:42
Emmanuel,
Navigraph sells "credits" to download AIRAC cycles. Aerosoft will sell DataSets ... is that the same?
Hello!
First of all I am not an aerosoft employee, so read everything from the official side as my words can be wrong.
To your question: Its very good listed in the first post what you get for your money. A data set is comparable to a navigraph airac cycle. The credits they use is just something like a currency, like the AES credits. Its still open how Aerosoft will handle this.
Navigraph sells credits. You can use credits to pay for cycles, and other stuff. I do not know how NavDataPro will work in regard to this.
Mathijs, I'd like to propose that you ammend your post with a short FAQ section. I have already noticed some stuff repeating and misunderstood. Could include:
-Will NavDataPro include decomissioned airports, that are still popular in simulator, such as Kai Tak?
No, the data will only include valid and current airports and procedures.
-Will this include PMDG/PSS/Wilco/Etc. data that are supplied by Navigraph now?
Yes, at least to the level that inclusion by Navigraph does not mean NavDataPro will not be compatibile.
The reason is, that every add-on has its own data format definition, from simple TXT files, to own proprietary format. What Navigraph actually does, is it obtains the data from a real-world aviation supplier, in its case NavTech, and converts it to add-on formats. NavDataPro is the same concept, but from another supplier (LIDO).
-Will this include LOWI or other RNP approach?
Depends, if it is in the original dataset. Note that not all add-ons are compatibile with all types of approaches, maybe most notably, PMDG current format is incompatibile with LOWI RNP procedures, specifically it does not allow for radius-to-fix path/terminator.
(note: a simplified procedure can be found, made by simmers)
You mentioned:
"First of all I am not an aerosoft employee, so read everything from the official side as my words can be wrong."
Ok, thanks for the background information.
"A data set (or dataset) is a collection of data, usually presented in tabular form. Each column represents a particular variable. Each row corresponds to a given member of the data set in
question. It lists values for each of the variables, such as height and weight of an object. Each value is known as a datum. ..."
ok, thanks for the wikipedia information on data sets ...but it did not mention AIRAC cycle(s).
But I see the relation to data orginization that you made, thanks.
At first I thought in the USA we say Airac Cycle and in Europe it is Data Set for aviation airport data, airspace fixes, NavAids, SIDS, STARS, Approach procedures...
You mentioned:
"Its very good listed in the first post what you get for your money. A data set is comparable to a navigraph airac cycle. The credits they use is just something like a currency, like the AES
credits.
Its still open how Aerosoft will handle this."
Anyway.
After reading post #36 by Mathijs, I wondered what was the exact meaning of data set because we will be purchasing them.
"We will sell single data sets, 4 data sets a year or 134 data sets per year"
So, naturally I was wondering what was 134 data sets per year.
This would not be 134 airac cycles.
And lastly, how much they would cost and if they will have time/usage/expire restrictions like Navigraph.
Like you said, Aerosoft will determine all this at a later date.
No worry.
I´d like to know if the standard or 3rd party GPS system can be updated with this software?
That would be great, because I only fly GA airplanes and I´d find it great if I could update the GPS.
FSX standard GPS definitely NO, as it relies on the default FSX database and can not access other databases. And neither NavDataPro nor Navigraph can update FSX's default data.
3rd party GPS: Maybe if they can use one of the formats NavdataPro will be delivered by Aerosoft.
But keep in mind that both NavdataPro and Navigraph are designed to be used by airlines in aircraft equiped with a FMS/FMC, GA-aircrafts normally don't have.
On behalf of Aerosoft and with kind regards, Mathijs Kok
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook
Please note that support is not done via Private Messages. If you prefer support via email click here.
Please excuse me for writing English in German forums, I do read and speak the language but when I write it people tend to look funny at me.
you must be misunderstanding what this product will do.
This is not competition to nDAC product, that is, charts, and information you would look up while flying.
Rather, it is a competitor to Navigraphs AIRAC cycles, that is, a set of data, that various add-ons such as aircraft add-ons, GPSes, flight planners, will use. Such as when you select an approach in the FMC or route in GPS of this/that add-on.
you must be misunderstanding what this product will do.
This is not competition to nDAC product, that is, charts, and information you would look up while flying. Rather, it is a competitor to Navigraphs AIRAC cycles, that is, a set of data, that various add-ons such as aircraft add-ons, GPSes, flight planners, will use. Such as when you select an approach in the FMC or route in GPS of this/that add-on.
Ah.
So we still need Navigraph for the airport and approach charts.
Then, if I might say, this product, IMHO, seems completely useless. Why?
Because if any (or more) of the following occurs:
- a SID/STAR/approach is in the FMC database but you have no charts for it - you have charts for a SID/STAR/approach but it is not in the FMC database - you have a SID/STAR/approach, both in the FMC database, and in your charts, but data from the one differs from the other
To be useful, data in the FMC, has to be absolutely synchronized (and vice versa) with the data you have in your charts.
I think you messed something up, as you can't "read" the data. Guess you're talking about nDAC, that's something completely different.
I understood that the product includes an alternate data cycle, but I honestly thought this will come with an improved reader. IMHO it's only natural to think Aerosoft will use their software development skills to create the reader that will overshadow the nDAC.
If the product is indeed just the data cycle I agree with cptawsom, that if I need to use the nDAC, I might as well purchase the charts inside their reader, and save myself the need to import the data.
I encourage Aerosoft to take the reader path in order to be distinctive.
The problem is not the reader, it is the data... creating good charts is more than just having them rendered from data. Data presentation makes a lot of difference, anyone who has compared national charts to Jepps to NavTech to LIDO can confirm. If, at one point, Aerosoft gets to the point of being able to offer simmers LIDO chart access, without it itself being prohibitely expensive...
Until then, just google a bit, you can find charts for pretty much any airport online.
Oh BTW, PMDG have confirmed that they will eventually add full ARINC support to their current line-up (that is, the NGX, 777 and 747/v2) - so once that is done, no more problems with radius-to-fix.
So we still need Navigraph for the airport and approach charts.
Then, if I might say, this product, IMHO, seems completely useless. Why?
Sorry, but I guess you didn't get the point:
Those data give you the chance to navigate based on real world data with addons that have the capability to do so. Delivering charts (enroute, approach, ground) is a completely different thing. They often contain informations that will never occure in navdata provided by Aerosoft or Navigraph. Also these charts are never synchronized with navdata. For example while navdata might change on a monthly base, approach data/charts can be valid for a year or longer. And this is the reason why these data are kept separate.
Now what many airlines are going to do is to use EFBs where all data are kept together, but this is extremly expensive to develop and maintain. So many pilots still have to use charts beside their FMC/FMS.
So it is up to you to "synchronize" your navdata with the charts. And this can be done easily as charts for the major regions around the world (and covered by FSX addons), like US, Europe and Asutralia, are availabe for free through the following (official) sources:
So, It would be possible to use EFB with Aerosoft Airac support?
In principle yes, as long as Aerosoft delivers the data structured in a way that Aivla EFB can read. But this depends on Aerosoft.
The content of the navdata is for all products same, but each product requires for example an individual naming or structure of the files to read them.
So we still need Navigraph for the airport and approach charts.
Then, if I might say, this product, IMHO, seems completely useless. Why?
Because if any (or more) of the following occurs:
- a SID/STAR/approach is in the FMC database but you have no charts for it - you have charts for a SID/STAR/approach but it is not in the FMC database - you have a SID/STAR/approach, both in the FMC database, and in your charts, but data from the one differs from the other
To be useful, data in the FMC, has to be absolutely synchronized (and vice versa) with the data you have in your charts.
In our market research we have seen that the vast majority of people who now update Navigraph data do not buy charts with it. only 5% has ever bought the charts. So we (and the group we asked) do not feel this is a issue. I am sorry you do, but as long as you only use the airports covered by Navigraph you should be happy with that product.
Btw, I have been in at least one airliner cockpit where the nav database was not from the same company as the charts and not on the same cycle. I asked about that and the crew told me it's not as uncommon as you think. There are many pilots who prefer one chart company over another. For example many prefer the Jeppesen colored charts these days.
1
On behalf of Aerosoft and with kind regards, Mathijs Kok
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook
Please note that support is not done via Private Messages. If you prefer support via email click here.
Please excuse me for writing English in German forums, I do read and speak the language but when I write it people tend to look funny at me.
"The content of the navdata is for all products same, but each product requires for example an individual naming or structure of the files to read them."
Ok,
Later Aerosoft could give a list of products (EFB etc) that works same a now in Navigraph.
"The content of the navdata is for all products same, but each product requires for example an individual naming or structure of the files to read them."
Ok, Later Aerosoft could give a list of products (EFB etc) that works same a now in Navigraph.
It's simple, we provide the data in the same formats as Navigraph, we got no way of knowing what aircraft or what tools use that. But if the EFB can use the Navigraph FMS data it will be able to use the NavDataPro data.
0
On behalf of Aerosoft and with kind regards, Mathijs Kok
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook
Please note that support is not done via Private Messages. If you prefer support via email click here.
Please excuse me for writing English in German forums, I do read and speak the language but when I write it people tend to look funny at me.
In our market research we have seen that the vast majority of people who now update Navigraph data do not buy charts with it. only 5% has ever bought the charts. So we (and the group we asked) do not feel this is a issue. I am sorry you do, but as long as you only use the airports covered by Navigraph you should be happy with that product.
I think you missed my point.
I didn't say I wouldn't like coverage of more airports.
I said I would like them, but BOTH inside the FMC AND in the SID/STAR/approach charts.
So every data in the FMC cycle, would be available as SID/STAR/approach charts, if someone wants them.
Btw, I have been in at least one airliner cockpit where the nav database was not from the same company as the charts and not on the same cycle. I asked about that and the crew told me it's not as uncommon as you think. There are many pilots who prefer one chart company over another. For example many prefer the Jeppesen colored charts these days.
That may be so, but I assume that the difference in data is not so great to make them - for example - fly into a mountain during a night approach to an airport within mountaineous terrain closeby (eg LSZH, SAWH, YSCB, CYVR, EDDM, ZBAA, SKBO, LDDU, HESH, HAAB, LFLL, LFML, LFMN, NTAA, LGAV, VHHH etc. I could probably list another 20 or so examples here).
My point:
The SID/STAR/approach in the FMC will only give you course, speed and altitude constraints. It will never provide you with a good-enough situational awareness of the area, to let you know how much margin of error you have in those (course, speed, altitude) - for various reasons (eg. gusts, heavy jets that need a lot of drag to slow down and descend etc.) you may come to need some additional room/altimeter, and you will never know whether you have it or not.
PS: However, since a decision has been made by Aerosoft, I will respect that, and I will not talk of this again.
The SID/STAR/approach in the FMC will only give you course, speed and altitude constraints. It will never provide you with a good-enough situational awareness of the area, to let you know how much margin of error you have in those (course, speed, altitude) - for various reasons (eg. gusts, heavy jets that need a lot of drag to slow down and descend etc.) you may come to need some additional room/altimeter, and you will never know whether you have it or not.
Oh I will not disagree with that. It is just that this is now shown in the market research. I know few people who bought the charts, but I know very many who buy the FMS data. It's not hard these days to get the charts you need for free after all. After all, many countries provide everybody who wants to have them with the charts without cost and fully legal.
0
On behalf of Aerosoft and with kind regards, Mathijs Kok
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook
Please note that support is not done via Private Messages. If you prefer support via email click here.
Please excuse me for writing English in German forums, I do read and speak the language but when I write it people tend to look funny at me.
At the bottom you have links to many sources for charts (SID, STAR, Enroute, ...) for free. At least no cost .
I bought some charts over nDac but it was completely waste of money because there I can get them for nothing more than a little time spent on the configuration of the search fields. nDac is just for comfort in my(!) opinion.
Interests:Aviation, computers. ATP-ASMEL, G-1159, Comm-ASES and CFI-ASMEI in real life.
Posted 07 June 2012 - 03:29
The SID/STAR/approach in the FMC will only give you course, speed and altitude constraints. It will never provide you with a good-enough situational awareness of the area, to let you know how much margin of error you have in those (course, speed, altitude) - for various reasons (eg. gusts, heavy jets that need a lot of drag to slow down and descend etc.) you may come to need some additional room/altimeter, and you will never know whether you have it or not.
I disagree with this point because of the implication that only a chart will "let you know how much margin of error you have..." This is simply not true. The chart adds nothing more or less than a graphical depiction of the route. If you fly the procedure within its limitations (course and/or heading, speed, altitude, restrictions, performance requirements such as climb gradient, etc.), whether stated in the text, notes on the graphic (which simply mirror the text) or as displayed on a nav display (if equiped with an FMS), you're assured obstacle clearance. No chart will tell you anything about how much margin of error you have.
In the US, non-commercial operators are not even required to possess charts to fly IFR for public procedures.
Interests:aviation, photography, maps, science, freethought, ambient, chillout, veganism, animal rights
Posted 07 June 2012 - 07:39
It's not hard these days to get the charts you need for free after all. After all, many countries provide everybody who wants to have them with the charts without cost and fully legal.
Exactly. I once used my Navigraph credits to acquire some of their nDAC charts. And never did it again. Even though I believe they are visually appealing and unified, they are often not up to date and they tend to be limited and incomplete. Last but not least, they will cost you extra money. The truth is you can get most necessary charts for free from portals like AIP. They are professional and as current as it can get. So I regularly update my cost-free chart collection and use them in simming.
Interests:Flight simulation. Anything thats connected to Riga airport.
Posted 07 June 2012 - 12:33
Exactly. I once used my Navigraph credits to acquire some of their nDAC charts. And never did it again. Even though I believe they are visually appealing and unified, they are often not up to date and they tend to be limited and incomplete. Last but not least, they will cost you extra money. The truth is you can get most necessary charts for free from portals like AIP. They are professional and as current as it can get. So I regularly update my cost-free chart collection and use them in simming.
It's also worth a look in local vACC websites, or the IVAO local (sorry don't know the name) things.
I disagree with this point because of the implication that only a chart will "let you know how much margin of error you have..." This is simply not true. The chart adds nothing more or less than a graphical depiction of the route.
Really?
Because last time I checked, charts also have a plethora of elevation lines-data, in mountaineous areas.
No chart will tell you anything about how much margin of error you have.
Terrain clearance is guaranteed within the STAR, and within applicable protected zone, allowing for some margin of error.
If you go off that on your own, you need to be above MSA, if you are above MSA, you are good, if you are under MSA, no terrain outlines are relevant. Those are not, and can not be, certified as navigational tool. If you deviate from STAR under MSA under IFR conditions, you are practically begging for CFIT (note that ATC with radar coverage can be more flexible, as they work with MRVA rather than MSA).
In conclusion, chart will not tell you how much margin of error in relation to terrain you have.
Interests:Aviation, computers. ATP-ASMEL, G-1159, Comm-ASES and CFI-ASMEI in real life.
Posted 08 June 2012 - 02:25
Really?
Because last time I checked, charts also have a plethora of elevation lines-data, in mountaineous areas.
So the above is simply NOT true.
Well, cptawson, we should just agree to disagree then. The chart contours don't help you in IMC, do they? And they don't help in pre-flight planning, either. They're supplemental info, period. The Jeppesen enroute legend says this about them in part (all caps in the original, so I won't shout here), "Terrain countour information is useful for orientation and general visualization of the terrain. It does not replace the the minimum altitudes dictated by the airway and air route structure." The approach chart legend says this about the "generalized terrain contours" on their charts (again, all caps in the original), "This information does not assure clearance above or around the terrain and must not be relied on for descent below the minimum altitudes dictated for the approach procedure." Really. And it's not even on the DPs (SIDs) and STARS as far as I can tell.
Naturally, this is in real life, and you can do anything you like on your sim. I'm simply disagreeing with your statement that that a SID or STAR chart will "let you know how much margin of error have in those (course, speed, altitude) - for various reasons (eg. gusts, heavy jets that need a lot of drag to slow down and descend etc.) you may come to need some additional room/altimeter, and you will never know whether you have it or not." I haven't seen every SID/STAR in the US or Europe, so if you can offer a number of them that would actually allow one to discover the "margin of error," I'm quite willing to learn. Do the contour lines really "tell you your margin of error"? Do you fly a turn wide or exceed the protected airspace on a procedure turn or "don't sweat" an altitude over the wide open spaces, but fly precise in mountainous terrain? I don't.
Since the procedure is constructed to criteria as Fabo notes (TERPS in the US), adherance to the procedure is all the guarantee you're going to get or need.
Second point you disagree with: as above, I'd be happy to learn from some good examples. Until then, I think your "Not true" is not true.
Interests:Aviation, computers. ATP-ASMEL, G-1159, Comm-ASES and CFI-ASMEI in real life.
Posted 08 June 2012 - 02:39
Some words regarding the LOC DME WEST at LOWI, as there are some requests for it in the forums:
This very special procedure is not included in database because it is not "codeable".
Reasons:
Missed approach point beyond the Apt ---> no suitable VNAV Angle calculation
Visual segments included
Jan-Paul
Great point, Jan-Paul. I look forward to Mathijs' reply, since I asked about that approach earlier and the availablity of additional approaches (like that one) is what has me interested in NavDataPro.
LOC/DME West in LOWI is a bit of a problematic affair... It is not a true "approach", in the sense that it does not end with positioning the airplane in a place to approach the runway more or less directly, such as ILS, a general non-precision approach, even LOC/DME East. I would indeed be interested in knowing how is this approach coded into real databases, if it is at all.
There is a proposal to be found on the internet, that proposes ammending ARINC 424 Approach coding rules in a way such that exactly this approach requires, by certain captain Howard A. Long. I have no idea whether this was, or was not, adopted, but if it indeed was, it means there are little hurdles regarding multiple missed approach paths depending on current position vs. approach, or indeed visual parts.
Indeed I believe there already are visual approaches coded into databases, such as Canarsie approach in JFK or Potomac approach in DCA, including visual parts of nominally instrument approaches is the next logical step (which works, in simulator at least - I have successfuly included visual portion of IGS approach in Sion) - and as long as we can include both missed approach procedure at MAPt, and escape manouver from visual part, there is no barrier in including these approaches in ARINC compliant database formats, that is, as I understand, native NavDataPro format to be used in Aerosoft Airbus, ARINC format to be used in FSL Airbus (which is, as far as I can tell, the same as in real Airbus aircraft), or in future PMDG ARINC capable format.
However, the problems that are present with current formats, which are almost, if not completely, all ARINC non-compliant. This means, that for example PMDGs MD-11 or JS-41, or, unless updated, Level-D and others, will never benefit from some of the new features.
One example of such limitation imposed by current formats, is the fact, that under current PMDG format, every approach has to contain the runway, thereby rendering it impossible to model properly MAPt of some non-precision approaches.
Naturally, this is in real life, and you can do anything you like on your sim. I'm simply disagreeing with your statement that that a SID or STAR chart will "let you know how much margin of error have in those (course, speed, altitude) - for various reasons (eg. gusts, heavy jets that need a lot of drag to slow down and descend etc.) you may come to need some additional room/altimeter, and you will never know whether you have it or not." I haven't seen every SID/STAR in the US or Europe, so if you can offer a number of them that would actually allow one to discover the "margin of error," I'm quite willing to learn. Do the contour lines really "tell you your margin of error"? Do fly a turn wide or exceed the protected airspace on a procedure turn or "don't sweat" an altitude over the wide open spaces, but fly precise in mountainous terrain? I don't.
Since the procedure is constructed to criteria as Fabo notes (TERPS in the US), adherance to the procedure is all the guarantee you're going to get or need.
Outside the US almost all countries have procedures drawn according to the ICAO Pans-Ops (Doc 8168 Vol II). The procedures cater to different kinds of aircraft (ie Categories A,B,C or D ... E is no longer used as it was only for the Concorde back in the day). It is up to the pilot to confirm that he can fly the procedure as published (in accordance with Doc 8168 Vol I). All factors such as wind, climb/descent gradient, reaction times, altimeter effects, temperature effects, and even gross error are taken into account when drawing a procedure. Basically if you're flying a 747 (Cat D) according to the Aircraft Operating Manual and stick to the requirements in ICAO Doc 8168 Vol I you will always be within the protection area of the procedure. The additional information provided on charts is "optional" according to ICAO Annex 4. The information is there to assist the pilot in emergency situations only, when he is forced to deviate from the procedure. And when I say "emergency situation" I mean the full "squawking 7700, maydayx3, going down" business! Normally things like critical obstacle per segment and significant terrain are typical items to be included.
I do have to wonder about the "non commercial operators allowed to fly IFR without charts onboard" statement made by a previous poster ... At least here in Europe the pilot is required to verify the procedure against the corresponding map before actually flying it. I would like to think that he'd still be required to carry charts for conventional procedures anyway in case his FMC(s) fail(s), so then what would be the benefit of leaving the RNAV charts home?
Anyway, as it is an ICAO requirement to provide Aeronautical Information on a non-commercial basis (ie no charge except to cover actual production costs), most countries nowadays indeed make their AIP's available for free online. For those areas where this is not yet the case (eg Indonesia), the local vACC will usually provide the charts anyway. However, as in rw operations this doesn't take away the commercial viability of chart providers (eg Jeppesen) as it quickly becomes very impractical to gather the information from official sources for truly international operations. Navigraph have modelled after this rw trend and capitalised on their sources to also gather and standardise charts.
As a Jeppesen EC4W user I don't have a need for an additional chart provider and will be happy to use Aerosoft's more complete database when it becomes available. Especially if they use a more logical purchasing sollution iso the credits system.
Well, cptawson, we should just agree to disagree then.
Spoiler
The chart contours don't help you in IMC, do they? And they don't help in pre-flight planning, either. They're supplemental info, period. The Jeppesen enroute legend says this about them in part (all caps in the original, so I won't shout here), "Terrain countour information is useful for orientation and general visualization of the terrain. It does not replace the the minimum altitudes dictated by the airway and air route structure." The approach chart legend says this about the "generalized terrain contours" on their charts (again, all caps in the original), "This information does not assure clearance above or around the terrain and must not be relied on for descent below the minimum altitudes dictated for the approach procedure." Really. And it's not even on the DPs (SIDs) and STARS as far as I can tell.
Naturally, this is in real life, and you can do anything you like on your sim. I'm simply disagreeing with your statement that that a SID or STAR chart will "let you know how much margin of error have in those (course, speed, altitude) - for various reasons (eg. gusts, heavy jets that need a lot of drag to slow down and descend etc.) you may come to need some additional room/altimeter, and you will never know whether you have it or not." I haven't seen every SID/STAR in the US or Europe, so if you can offer a number of them that would actually allow one to discover the "margin of error," I'm quite willing to learn. Do the contour lines really "tell you your margin of error"? Do fly a turn wide or exceed the protected airspace on a procedure turn or "don't sweat" an altitude over the wide open spaces, but fly precise in mountainous terrain? I don't.
Since the procedure is constructed to criteria as Fabo notes (TERPS in the US), adherance to the procedure is all the guarantee you're going to get or need.
Second point you disagree with: as above, I'd be happy to learn from some good examples. Until then, I think your "Not true" is not true.
In the real world...
Spoiler
...I am not a pilot.
My background is (among others) in construction engineering (specialized in transportation works -> ie roads, highways, airports, bus and metro lines etc).
So congradulations.
You've just told me, that given an elevation chart (a map with elevation lines on it), and let's say a highway on top of it, with elevation data along its main axis, I do not know to determine how higher the highway is from the real elevation of the ground, at any given point.
Now, since the logic is exactly the same, replace the highway above the ground, with the flight path of an aircraft.
Interests:Aviation, computers. ATP-ASMEL, G-1159, Comm-ASES and CFI-ASMEI in real life.
Posted 09 June 2012 - 17:49
Outside the US almost all countries have procedures drawn according to the ICAO Pans-Ops (Doc 8168 Vol II). The procedures cater to different kinds of aircraft (ie Categories A,B,C or D ... E is no longer used as it was only for the Concorde back in the day). It is up to the pilot to confirm that he can fly the procedure as published (in accordance with Doc 8168 Vol I). All factors such as wind, climb/descent gradient, reaction times, altimeter effects, temperature effects, and even gross error are taken into account when drawing a procedure. Basically if you're flying a 747 (Cat D) according to the Aircraft Operating Manual and stick to the requirements in ICAO Doc 8168 Vol I you will always be within the protection area of the procedure. The additional information provided on charts is "optional" according to ICAO Annex 4. The information is there to assist the pilot in emergency situations only, when he is forced to deviate from the procedure. And when I say "emergency situation" I mean the full "squawking 7700, maydayx3, going down" business! Normally things like critical obstacle per segment and significant terrain are typical items to be included.
I do have to wonder about the "non commercial operators allowed to fly IFR without charts onboard" statement made by a previous poster ... At least here in Europe the pilot is required to verify the procedure against the corresponding map before actually flying it. I would like to think that he'd still be required to carry charts for conventional procedures anyway in case his FMC(s) fail(s), so then what would be the benefit of leaving the RNAV charts home?
Anyway, as it is an ICAO requirement to provide Aeronautical Information on a non-commercial basis (ie no charge except to cover actual production costs), most countries nowadays indeed make their AIP's available for free online. For those areas where this is not yet the case (eg Indonesia), the local vACC will usually provide the charts anyway. However, as in rw operations this doesn't take away the commercial viability of chart providers (eg Jeppesen) as it quickly becomes very impractical to gather the information from official sources for truly international operations. Navigraph have modelled after this rw trend and capitalised on their sources to also gather and standardise charts.
As a Jeppesen EC4W user I don't have a need for an additional chart provider and will be happy to use Aerosoft's more complete database when it becomes available. Especially if they use a more logical purchasing sollution iso the credits system.
Thanks for the additional information. As you say, as long as you fly the procedure, you're protected.
I posted the bit about non-commercial users in the US not required to carry charts. Commercial operators have a specific requirement spelled out in the appropriate rule set (FAR 121, 125 and 135 for example). Since the General Operating and Flight Rules in part 91 are silent on this, there's no requirement. Part 91 does require US operators to comply with foreign state requirements when flying in that state, so citing the rules you noted, a US non-commecial operator would have to carry charts for Europe while in Europe.
As I also noted in my post, this of course is for the real world only. For sim work, I always prefer to have the charts available if possible. For me, the problem of all the different formats and sizes from nDAC and free charts was annoying enough that for Christmas, my dear wife gave me a Jeppesen trip kit covering Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands. For about $350, it's a pure delight to have all the low altitude, area, DPs (SIDs), STARS, approach plates and airport diagrams. The latter include the gates too. It's not kept current of course, but by acquiring all the Navigraph databases for the period the charts were current, my aircraft that use them are synced with the charts.
Interests:Aviation, computers. ATP-ASMEL, G-1159, Comm-ASES and CFI-ASMEI in real life.
Posted 09 June 2012 - 18:38
In the real world...
Spoiler
...I am not a pilot.
My background is (among others) in construction engineering (specialized in transportation works -> ie roads, highways, airports, bus and metro lines etc).
So congradulations.
You've just told me, that given an elevation chart (a map with elevation lines on it), and let's say a highway on top of it, with elevation data along its main axis, I do not know to determine how higher the highway is from the real elevation of the ground, at any given point.
Now, since the logic is exactly the same, replace the highway above the ground, with the flight path of an aircraft.
Again, congradulations.
You've just accomplished the impossible.
First of all, I'm continuing this dialog in the spirit that you're interested in other points of view and learning more, not in making a point. Your statements so far I think show that.
Respectfully, I think you've missed the point I was trying to make, and that might be because I didn't make it well enough. I was simply and only saying that that the chart will not give you the margin of error. Those three words are my focus. Countours or no, an IFR chart does not have that kind of data and that kind of precision. Pilots don't care what the margin is anyway, and most instrument pilots don't even know. Nor are they required to, at least in the US. The design of the procedure takes all that into account. "Fly it right and you're at a safe height." That might be hard to grasp, but operationally, it works just fine. In your example, it might be possible to approximate your height above terrain, but it's irrelevant operationally. I'm not saying it can't be done, only that it will be an approximation and of no use.
Here's an example. In the US, flight at or above the minimum enroute altitude on an airway guarantees at least 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within 4 nautical miles of course centerline in non-mountainous terrain. It's actually a bit more due to rounding things up, but let's keep it simple. In mountainous terrain, it's 2,000 feet. Knowing your exact postion on the airway, and comparing it to a visual navigation chart (which has detailed contours) could allow you to determine you were exactly 2,201 feet above a given mountain and therefore 201 feet above the guaranteed minimum. Whether you have an extra margin of 201 feet or the bare minimum doesn't matter. What does is that under the most adverse conditions of pressure and temperature error in your altimeter, course guidance, turbulance and imprecise flying, you're still safely above the rocks. You don't care how much, you just care that you are.
Maybe a little detail will help. I happen to work with a group of guys that are responsible for designing special instrument approaches into places that don't quite fit the standards. To design the approach and missed approach paths, they apply the obstacle clearance criteria (much more info can be found here) against highly detailed charts called obstacle clearance charts. These are tabletop sized documents that map out carefully surveyed points and are only of use for designing the procedures. The product of their work is a text based document that a commercial chart provider can use to produce a chart. They simply transform climb or descent gradients at expected values, courses, turns at expected radii and so forth to produce a visual product. The only indication of how high you are above the ground or touchdown zone on the runway (depending on the procedure) is at the missed approach point. The chart makes it much easier to fly of course, but it doesn't document the margin of error.
If you want to learn what the margin is, the document in the link will tell you.
To summarize what I've been trying to say, knowing where the rocks are is irrelevant. Follow the procedure and you have guaranteed margin. Stray off the path and a chart won't help you.
As an aside, how did you get the text into the little boxes you can toggle on and off? Really saves the screen real estate. Nice touch.
Sign In 
Register 
This topic is closed
