RNAV transitions

[srcooke 422]

Any idea on the reasoning as to why RNAV waypoints on Arrival Transition's are omitted? Can be seen on arrivals to EDDF and EDDM for example in the PMDG data.

[Jan-Paul Schuchna 24]

Hello Stephen,

this is a requirement of the DFS. They provide only waypoints that have a specific function (altitude constraint, track change, speed limit) in their coding table. Therefore the intermediate waypoints are not included in the procedure coding.

But they are stiil in the database and can be inserted manually if needed. The advantage is that the ND gets not cluttered by too many waypoints.

Another example is Turkey:

They provide every waypoint in their coding table:

Btw. Navigraph (based on Jeppesen) has the same coding. With EAG this was different, they included every waypoint.

Different Countries / Providers have different coding philosophies.

[srcooke 422]

Thanks for the clarification Jan-Paul.

Would ATC not use the additional waypoints controlling approach traffic?

[Emi 5161]

They would and that's the reason you can still enter them manually (if needed).

[srcooke 422]

Thanks for the replies. I fail to see the purpose of not including all waypoints of a procedure and indeed can foresee errors been made using direct entry at short notice.

[Emi 5161]

Thanks for the replies. I fail to see the purpose of not including all waypoints of a procedure and indeed can foresee errors been made using direct entry at short notice.

The prupose is that the display is not being filled with tons of information. If you have set it to a bigger range it will become filled with to much information at one point and so you won't be able to read much over there. If you have less waypoints you have a much clearer view on what's really important and that's the flightpath.