Sign in to follow this  
vonmar

Cycle 0704 KATL SIDs

Recommended Posts

Hi,KATL procedures:GEETK change to GEETK3, NOVSS to NOVSS2The KATL BRAVS4 (RNAV)SID has duplicate waypoints.Like SNUFY repeats itself.There should not be any VOR radials in the procedure. They all should be heading to altitude followed by several fixes.This is the only one I have checked so far. Will check all the KATL procedures later today after I do my taxes.File size is like 360K so maybe there are similar problems elseware in the procedures for KATL.Which US airports were updated in this cycle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

The VOR radials mentioned in the last post should have referenced GEETK ... GEETK4.Also the BRAVS4 for procedures runways like 08L 08R 09L 09R did not load in the FMC because in the procedure you had: Should be: I will take a look at all the KATL SIDS later.Maybe there are more problems like these mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Vaughan,Thanks for taking the time to report what you found.>GEETK change to GEETK3, NOVSS to NOVSS2My source code is corrected.>The KATL BRAVS4 (RNAV)SID has duplicate waypoints.>Like SNUFY repeats itself.Repeats itself?>There should not be any VOR radials in the procedure. They all>should be heading to altitude followed by several fixes.True there are no radials shown on the plate, however, each procedure starts with instructions like "on 072 course to HRSHL,". In order to get the aircraft to fly that 072 course, and others stipulated, I had to have the plane intercept and fly that "radial" to HRSHL. If I did a direct to the waypoint after the initial climb then it would most likely not be on the course stipulated. I believe that course after the initial climb is the only place I had to use a radial intercept. The rest are just track to fix legs.>This is the only one I have checked so far. Will check all the>KATL procedures later today after I do my taxes.Ahhh, you too. I will be mailing mine today. I used to efile using a tax program but Turbo Tax and Tax Cut now charge $15 - $16 with no rebate anymore. I'm back to paper.>File size is like 360K so maybe there are similar problems>elseware in the procedures for KATL.Maybe but XML is very wordy and there are 8 runway transitions to write for each of the 8 DPs I inserted. Of all the formats I supply the XML is by far the fattest. It is 4 to 10 time more by volume than the other formats.>Which US airports were updated in this cycle?I don't keep track of that for the USFIF data . I did add in hand written procedures for KATL, KJFK, KLAX and KSFO though plus all the UK airports are hand written.I spot check. I just don't have the time to test all the procedures I produce so feedback is important to insure quality. Thanks again for taking the time to help.Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These were changed during cycle 0612.There only change during cycle 0703 at KATL was CANUK4 and a minor change to ILS27L.There are no changes at KATL Cycle 0704.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Should be:>>>>>This is perplexing Vaughan. I caught that error after an initial run and corrected the missing zeros and reran the procedures. I just double checked my source code and it is correct so I don't know what happened on this one. What is even more odd is that I ran checkproc against all the files and there were no errors. I'll run them again and visually check those runway numbers. I will then put an update on my site. Should be done shortly.Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again>The KATL BRAVS4 (RNAV)SID has duplicate waypoints.>Like SNUFY repeats itself.I think this is caused by the radial usage. The first instance of SNUFY is getting on the correct radial (or course) to SNUFY and the second is the waypoint SNUFY.Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry,In your procedures for KATL:****This is BRAVS4 example.But, other SIDs for KATLhave the same problems.****GEETK should be GEETK4JOGOR should be JOGOR2NOVSS should be NOVSS2********* here is where 8L should be 08L etc.otherwise won't load into FMC**** BRAVSNormal32.999944-84.172561000atWALETNormal32.365508-83.913083000at**** here is where 8L should be 08Lotherwise won't load into FMC****(AA)ConstHdgtoAlt0.00.0015000above092Auto**** You define HRSHL ?? with radial??it will not load into FMC this wayIf this waypoint ID is removed from the procedureit will work fine. The plate is just showingthe course that will be tracked.**** HRSHLVorRadialIntc33.682769-84.279567000at092252Auto******** Here next, you will go direct to HRSHLIt works great.The ids just need renumbered.**** All SIDs where you used a radial ID waypointwill not load into the Level-D FMCThey all need to be removed.The plate you are using gives a bearing but justgo DIRECT to next waypoint instead.Like you do hear:********************************* HRSHLNormal33.682769-84.279567000atESFORNormal33.733953-84.095019000at**** When I load this procedure the route fromESTWU to ESTUS should be showinga course of 197 and 12nm per the plate.But, instead it tracks 270 degrees 3nm.!!So, i figure the ESTUS waypoint LAT/LONis incorrect somewhere!************************************** ESTWUNormal33.694894-84.000036000atESTUSNormal33.694894-84.064303000at**** ESTWUNormal33.694894-84.000036000atESTUSNormal33.694894-84.064303000at****I looked up LAT/LON in FSbuild but have not looked into it yet. I may have to checkother sources as well to locate the error.ESTWU N33:41:41 W84:00:00ESTUS N33:29:40 W84:03:51****Some procedures with speed restrictionsare shown properly. Others are missing.Like the JOGOR2 SID should havespeed restrictions 250 at KLEGGand 250 at NOFOR****JOGOR2MAPEE should be included in theSID transition.****On the previous post I mentionedduplicate waypoints.That was on the FMC display becauseof the Radial entries in the procedure file.****

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry,The update fixed the runways. I can access the SID now.However, the e.g. BRAVS4 (and others) procedure still will not properly load into the FMC.See my previous post that will fix so it loads without a invaild waypoint. That's the radial entries in the SIDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry,Here is what I found looking up the lat/lons for two waypoints:****Terry: In the procedure file, plots wrong on FMC.ESTWU 33.694894 -84.000036ESTUS 33.694894 -84.064303********FSbuildESTWU N33:41:41 W84:00:00ESTUS N33:29:40 W84:03:51****AirNavESTWU 33-41-41.620N 084-00-00.130WESTUS 33-29-40.370N 084-03-51.490W****NavigraphESTWU 33.694894 -84.000036ESTUS 33.494547 -84.064303I do not know how to plot between these different formats.Between these two points the polt is 270/3nm on the FMCShould be 197/12nm per the BRAVS4 plate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FAA DAI:FIX ESTWU LATLON N 33 41.693 W 084 00.002FIX ESTUS LATLON N 33 29.673 W 084 03.858FAA ID Document 7350.7Y:ESTWU 33-41-41.6200N 084-00-00.1300WESTUS 33-29-40.3700N 084-03-51.4900WThe latter is almost always the authority; however, in this casethey are both equivalent to within +/- 0.001 min. The error is ESTWU has same latitude as ESTUS... easy mistake.I just checked these and I get a leg of 197/12 in the 737NG.FYI: Conversion is just dividing/multiplying by 60, eg.:33:41:41.6200 (41.62 / 60 = 0.694) >> 33:41.694

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok,I did a flight plan in fsbuild using raw waypoints.Got the lat/lon for ESTUS: FSbuild = N33:29:40 W84:03:51 Terry's procedure = 33.694894 -84.064303 Navigraph = 33.494547 -84.064303So I removed Terry's from theprocedures file and put in the onefrom Navigraph because it wasalready in the correct format It worked and the FMC calculated the correct route forthe RWWY 08L BRAVS4 KATL departure procedure.Guys, remember that I am not into this lat/lon conversion etc., I just tried a few thing until I found what worked in the sim.Hope I am giving correct feedback on all this stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry,I programmed the FMC to do what you were doing with Radial.Here is what I came up with that works in the Level-D FMCNo errors loading it and flying it.I aslo updated the lat/log for ESTUS in this one.I used heading to altitude.Then conditional waypoint (.int) hdg 040 to intercept the HRSHL waypoint radial 252.Then direct HRSHL.If it worked here it would work with the rest of them also.(1500)ConstHdgtoAlt0.0000000.000000015000above192Left(INTC)Intc33.682769-84.279567000at140252AutoHRSHLNormal33.682769-84.279567000atFly-byAutoESFORNormal33.733953-84.095019000atFly-byAutoESTWUNormal33.694894-84.000036000atFly-byAutoESTUSNormal33.494547-84.064303000atFly-byAuto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DanThanks for the backup.>they are both equivalent to within +/- 0.001 min. The error is>ESTWU has same latitude as ESTUS... easy mistake.Yup. The Lat for ESTUS used the lat from ESTWU. Fixed but before I put it back on the site I'm going to wait a little to try and figure out why the radial intercept isn't working. I could easily put in a "direct to" but then that would not be following the ATC instructions. Or am I thinking wrong here?Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi VaughanThanks for the follow-ups. INTC)Intc33.682769-84.279567000at140I was using a different type intercept. I have switched it to >Intc< since that seems to work for you. The revised KATL file is ready for DL. Give it a try. BTW, where did you get the 40 degree heading? Should be using 092 degrees to intercept the radial of 252.>Like the JOGOR2 SID should have speed restrictions 250 at KLEGG>and 250 at NOFORThe stated restrictions are a removal of the restriction, not the enforcement of the 250 kt restriction. As for these type speed restrictions I left those off because I was not sure how to write them. It says maintain 250 Kts until XXXXX. At what waypoint do I start the 250 restriction and then how do I remove it at the designated waypoint. I would presume that to remove the restriction one would program in a cruise or climb speed and I don't know what they are since it is up to the pilot to determine those speeds. I am open to suggestions on this one. Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry,At first I did not know where the problems were.With the SIDs and or Level-D's FMC or whatever?Each had to be sorted out.After sorting a few things with you and Dan, I wanted to use (INT)to program the conditional waypoint. I figured if one SID couldbe fixed they all could be fixed in the same way.I knew (.int) would fly any heading, capture the the fake radial, then fly to the waypoint "on the selected radial". I initally selected40 degree HDG to intercept to see what the Level-D's FMC would do with the new procedure instruction and values.I picked 40 degrees as at test. Assuming airport elevation is 1000' and the turn altitude was only 1500', RWY08L runway is 1.7 miles long. We would barly pass the end before reaching 1500' and starting the left turn on 072 HDG to HRSHL.So, I picked a 30 degree intercept angle (040) to fly to get onto the 072 HDG required heading (R-252 from HRSHL) to HRSHL.I assumed, what if:If the pilot flew RWY HDG too long before turning left to interceptthe 292 radial .... I figured 040 would get him back on track.Anyway, the FMC liked it and I knew we could work the SIDs now.*********************************************************************Later I went back and used 092 ... your initial value and it also worked to intercept the R-252. So, just using .INT was the solution with the Level-D's FMC and the SIDs.************************************************************************For BRAVS4 and other KATL SIDs:The speed restriction it is "until passing" HYZMN or ZALLE etc.ATC wants the departing flights on the "inner" route to BRAVS at <=250then they only have to assign speeds to pilots flying the "outer" routes so everyone does not arrive at BRAVS at the same time.Safety too, the inner tracks do not want to overshoot the departureheadings ... sharp turns ... lateral separation.**********************************************************************The speed is inserted where you have normally put it in the procedures:eg. HYZMN250It tells the Level-D's FMC not to go faster than this until past HYZMN. **********************************************************************

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry,I tried programming a .VRI radial interceptfor the procedure two ways. This is theone your program was using.1. Using HRSHL waypoint as the radial fixThis would not work ... crashes the FMC2. Using ATL (vor) as the radial fix insteadof the HRSHL fix waypoint.Using a real vor worked well but you haveto figure out the radial you want to cross andthe procedure does not specify using a vor.But, I told the procedure here to get the ATL 045 (3 digits to define bearing instead of two)radial the direct HRSHL.ATLVorRadialIntc33.629069-84.435069000at192 45AutoHRSHLNormal33.682769-84.279567000atFly-byAutoIt worked.3. Using the and using the 252 radialfrom the fake vor, waypoint HRSHL.It worked.Advantage here: It agrees with the procedure andyou do not have to figure out which real worldvor radial to cross.Note:Still have not got my taxes done, DARN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although RNAV procedures often provide bearings between waypoints, in reality they are flow as RF (route to fix) legs and that's how I program them.In this case, BARVS4 Rys 8L/R, a track (092) is flown until altitude (1500) then direct HRSHL thence as charted. The significance of the altitude is only that that is the minimum safe altitude (~500 AGL) at which the turn to HRSHL should be commenced. Having some experience with how these are designed (TERPS procedures), I am confident that the intent is not to maintain 092 until intercepting 070-072 track to HRSL; rather: TRK 092 UNTIL 1500 FIX HRSHL FIX ESFOR FIX ESTWU FIX ESTUS is the correct PMDG instruction.I'm sure that the design of the departure is such that obstruction clearance and traffic separation is assured from the runway to HRSHL at any altitude above 1500, which must be achieved at the specified 500 ft/nm, thence standard minimum climb angle.RNAV procedures always seem to provide a waypoint where a change in track is intended, I have not seen one that requires a TF (track to fix) leg (but I haven't seen them all).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya,That is the easiest way to get the SID procedure done. I mentioned that in my original post.But, Terry is following the procedure which does give a turn to heading to the first fix, after that, then per the plate, by dipicted (direct) route. The advantage is, no matter when you reach the restricted altitude (early/late) you will always end up flying the plates HDG to the first fix.This method does require one more programming step to generate the SID. I flew it times and the aircraft will be right on the plate heading to the first fix. Accurate!When DIR to the first waypoint is used, the heading to the first waypoint is "different" each time.On these departures I would prefer Terry's method of getting there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan,It my understanding that from an ATC point of view they do not control the RNAV guys. They expect they will be on heading/altitude (per procedure) for the entire route. From departure to ILS.The non-Rnav flights must be constantly vectored HDH/ALT to keep the route safely separated.If a controller gives an Rnav pilot a direct to a fix, that just blew away the Rnav route/plan ... he is on vectors from now on and controlled from that point on.That is why the Rnav procedures must be "right on".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<>I don't agree... but it's a moot point. If they are flying RNAV1 accuracy (per chart) they are allowed an RMS Error of +/- 1 nm.. I've seen comparison pictures of the vectors vs RNAV departures at DFW (in Aviation Week & Space Technology), and believe me the tracks have a scatter although the RNAV tracks are "tighter." Anyway, an allowable error of 1 nm means your TF vs RF tracks are equivalent in this case. Either works... why not keep it simple.By the way, the controllers are monitoring the RNAV flights, as you suggest, but I've never heard one admend the clearance to fly vectors for the reason you give. Usually it's a gently reminder such as, "are you on the braves four?" (I've been flying since 1974).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning Vaughan,>1. Using HRSHL waypoint as the radial fix>This would not work ... crashes the FMCThis a interesting. I am looking at the ND now (plan mode) with the BRAVS4 with 08L programmed in and it perfectly displays the DP. Actually all the runways worked. The climb is there and the interception of "radial" 252 is there. I don't understand why the DP works on my 767 and not yours. I reloaded the aircraft I downloaded yesterday to insure I was fully up-to-date and I loaded the procedures that I downloaded from my site this morning.>2. Using ATL (vor) as the radial fix instead>of the HRSHL fix waypoint.Problem here is that the radial from the VOR to HRSHL most likely would not match the 072 course because the top of the climb is at an unknown location that probably would not fall on the VOR radial. Plus if it did match for one runway it wouldn't for the other. And for sure it would not work for all of the runways. I am rethinking my stance here. As displayed on the ND the top of climb and the radial interception point are very close. If the climb is less than what is calculated by the FMC it would be possible for the aircraft to fly beyond the interception point before reaching the TOC. It would then miss the interception entirely. I may just do what you want and use the direct to fix method at KATL but let me ask around some more.>Still have not got my taxes done, DARN!I hope they are simple for you. Hmmm, today is 14th and Sunday is 15th. I wonder if the deadline is extended to Monday. Oh well, an extension would work.....regardsTerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dan>Although RNAV procedures often provide bearings between>waypoints, in reality they are flow as RF (route to fix) legs>and that's how I program them.The TOC and interception point of the course to the fix is very, very close as displayed by the ND in plan mode. They are so close I can see that there may be a possibility that the TOC may go beyond the radial intercept point and therefore not be able to do an intercept. I am now leaning towards using , as suggested, a direct to fix. I'm thinking in this case that the resultant course would still be very close to the published one. I want to poke around a little more though.Thanks for your help.Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry,You said , What is the ND?Are you using Level-D 767 aircraft for testing?On your procedure using Radial (HRSHL), when that loads into the Level-D, that waypoint displays like: x**%3@>&$ , basiclly really junk text to discribe the waypoint looks like on the FMC screen. Other waypoints display and plot on the screen just fine. This happens with each of those type radial entries.I have to say again, I am not a programmer. I can only tell you what I see when the procedure is loaded. Maybe there is a missing "thing" like a special character or whatever in the procedure ... I do not know.If you like you can e-mail me the begining of the procedure, end it after the first 08L part of the procedure, and I will test it and report back. vbmartell@comcast.netBetter yet, if you live in the US, I will call you and we could quickly finger poke a few things and I could tell you what I see.E-mail me and I will send my phone number if you would rather call me.Whatever I can do to help I will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey terry,I found that the THRSR4 depature has the THRSR waypoint north of the airport and in my FMC it says a heading of 017. Its suppose to be south of the airport. I thought this seem to be weird. So i removed it from my FMC and re-entered it and it popped up where it should be south of the airport with a 167 degree heading from ZALLE. I took a look at the XML file but i have no idea how to fix the problem. Looks like you need to update this slight problem or pilots will be getting yelled at by ATC as to why are they going north after ZALLE??. lolMatthew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this