Dan,You are correct.Here is the link I found for the plates: http://charts.ivao.ca/CAP2/CYCG.pdfCYCG also has LOC and NDB approaches .. at least in June 2006.So far I have not been able to determine if these are still in use?

Ken,I did not get an automated e-mail notice from PMDG forum or I would have replied sooner. Anyway, a bit of follow provided here.***There are choices when flying, like off-line pleasure flying:To use old charts then use default MSFS data/weather/scenery with MSFS generated flight plan for GPG flights. To use todays real world data (like for on-line flying) you need up to date "everything".This option costs money for some of this.Weather programwaypointsNavaidsSceneryAfcads (airport updates)Charts (enroute Hi/LO altitude/Approach/SID/STAR)Flight plan downloaded from internet or Flight plan program.If using Flight Plan Program it also needs up to date Navdata/Airac and procedures (SID/STARS).***Your original post was here in the PMDG forum on 10-25-09.Your first post on Navigraph "requests" forum was on 10-26-09.On the 26th on the Navigraph forum I said:Possibly it (meaning CYCG procedure) has not yet ever been a supported SID/STAR procedures airport.The key word here is "yet".>>>>On Oct 26 and 27 you had questions and answers going in both forums (PMDG/Navigraph).On the 27th I replied to Dan Downs that I had already answered your questions in the Navigraph forum.And, I found and posted "old" approach charts for him to look at (review) on the PMDG forum.Then Ken mentioned:"Here's the rub ... I pay for the Jeppesen charts and the airacs and neither showed me the fixes."That is because MSFS is using older and possibly now, obsolete data.Jeppesen charts and the airacs are using current real world data.Then Ken mentioned:"I think at least the airac should ... CYCG is a small airport but is commercially serviced by Air Canada's "Jazz"."I agree with you.That is what was being looked at ... discussed.Then Ken mentioned: "There is no reference to CYCG.txt in the SID/STARS file but the approach still existed ... see April 2006 chart submitted by vonmar in this thread."Yes, it existed in 2006 but I did not know if it still existed "today 2009" or not.I could not find a more current chart.And Navigraph only uses current charts in developing SID/STARs.So I needed to find out somehow what is the date of the current chart?At this point I was trying to give an answer on two forums!So, I did another post on PMDG to sum up for a better understanding.At that time, to the best of my knowledge I said:********Ken,I responded to your posts in the Navigraph forum.Navigraph does not provide procedures for all airports in the world.Navigraph provides data to update old obsolete data in FS9/FSX.Navigraph does not support obsolete procedures or data from previous months/years.I posted the screenshot of the old RNAV procedure here. That does not mean it is a valid procedure today.I went to the xplane forum and learned that the Navdata is a free service from Robin Peel.So, that is why it is available to you in Xplane.They are "custom made" procedures. That does not mean it is a valid procedure today.You must check your sources to verify if this airport is current (2009) procedures.********So, I was just trying to be helpful and get it sorted out.The last response on the Navigraph "requests" forum was:>>>>>>>>Hi Ken,The Navigraph updates for different add-ons are derived from the same data source provided by our data supplier. SID/STAR's are not provided for all airports, but only those where our supplier has a real world paying customer. Unfortunately it would seem that CYCG is not one of these. This can change as real world customers' needs change. I shall request it be added, but don

CYCG also has LOC and NDB approaches .. at least in June 2006.So far I have not been able to determine if these are still in use?

Here's the rub with these approaches, they are both circling approaches only. Circling approaches are rarely included in the FMS data, only approaches that are runway specific.

Dan,It is a valid RNAV approach in 2007 per Garmin GPS (screenshot).When I looked at it I seen the approach for RWY15 on the Canadian plate. Circling minimums.The last RNAV waypoint is runway 15.I do not think they are landing on RWW33 in these procedures.But what I was asking is, where is the most current (2009) chart and procedures for CYCG?What I posted here is real old stuff.Just for an example of the possible missing waypoints the OP mentioned.Maybe these waypoints do not even exist anymore. Who knows, maybe by 2009 CYCG has a newly published LDA or RNAV (GPS) RWY 15 LVP/VNAV/LNAV/Circling approach.All the older plates here: http://charts.ivao.ca/CAP2/CYCG.pdf

There's a Garmin 530 in the C414 I fly, and sure they do NDB-C (or VOR-A) type overlays.But in our limited sidstar syntax, there's no acceptable way to encode the circling approach; therefore, I believe these are not included in the Navigraph data. If it were a NDB RWY XX then no problem.

There's a Garmin 530 in the C414 I fly, and sure they do NDB-C (or VOR-A) type overlays.** Right, and from a Navigraph standpoint ... for example ... other users/aircraft may need this data.But in our limited sidstar syntax, there's no acceptable way to encode the circling approach;**I do not understand this ... maybe because I read USA plates too much.Actually I just look at the plate and fly it!But the notes section is for landing minimums ... in this case circling minimums.The approach is still RNAV.The approach is offset like an LDA so there will be a final 30 degree turn at minimums or before to land.And there is also a LOC approach here. therefore, I believe these are not included in the Navigraph data. If it were a NDB RWY XX then no problem.** That could be on reason.But the reason Navigraph gave was (per a previous post here):SID/STAR's are not provided for all airports, but only those where our supplier has a real world paying customer.

** That is why I wanted to locate the current plates for CYCG ... to verify current approach data.Sorry, I put my responses into the quote above on accident.So, read where the ** are above.

Dan,For example KEWR in the PMDG / Navigraph procedures.APPROACH RNAV11 FIX MUFIE FIX JETVY RNW 11 TRK 108 UNTIL 418 TURN RIGHT DIRECT FIX DIRMY HOLD AT FIX DIRMY RIGHT TURN INBOUNDCOURSE 061 ALT 3000 LEGTIME 1

Sure Vaughan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11 is no problem, but look over at KLGA LaGuardia where I assume you won't find: RNAV(GPS)-B, LDA-A, VOR/DME-G, VOR/DME-H or VOR-F. I don't have a copy of the navigraph sidstar file readily available so take a look and correct me if those approaches are listed for KLGA.

Dan,Ok, I took a look for KLGA:No, RNAV(GPS)-B, ...... for RWY22I thought I would check the waypoints on just this one and see if they were present in database.Waypoints are, NISIY, COHOP, TIYUK, RWY22Waypoints are in database for use in FMC.No, LDA-A, ............ for RWY22No, VOR/DME-G, ........ for RWY22But it does have:APPROACH RNAV22Y APPROACH RNAV22ZNo, VOR-F ............. for RWY04But it does have:APPROACH VOR04

That is what I expected.The sidstar syntax we use cannot encode an approach that doesn't terminate at a runway, and by definition circling approaches do not terminate at one specific runway. Note the FAA charts for an approach like VOR-F does not have a runway in the title as does a typical VOR approach, which would be titled VOR RNW 04. Also, there are no straight-in minima in the miminums table. In a way, a circling approach can be considered an IFR approach until MDA then either you fly to the runway maintaining visual contact or you go around. Minimums are generally higher for circling.

Tom,Quick summary here:We don't use the default FSX navdata from 2006 because most experienced simmers who fly online with VATSIM or IVAO use current procedures on both the pilot and controller end. There's just no other way to do it realistically. The default FSX data does not even include SIDs/STARs, its limited to approaches and even then, it's probably not complete. Believe me, we would have many many more people complaining if our navdata was stuck in 2006 as FSX is.The main underlying things that change vs. the FSX navdata are airspace fixes/intersections (which make up terminal procedures and airways) and the jumbling around of ILS frequencies and whatnot when an airport adds new runways - it's pretty rare to actually see VORs change or anything like that. The runway and ILS changes can be added to FSX through addon scenery - examples being KSEA, KDEN etc, which have added new runways since 2006.In short, it just makes far more sense and is far more flexible for us to use current real world data. It is not perfect and we don't claim that it is - navigraph, planepath, and Dan's handcoded procedures are all we have. What you're getting in any FSX FMS that is served by those companies/individuals is not the same as the real current Jeppessen database you'd find in a real airliner's FMS. It's an approximation collected from a bunch of different freely available sources. A real Jeppessen navdata subscription costs many thousands of dollars - it is a major expense for real life operators. I hope you're not expecting such a subscription to be included in a $50 MSFS addon. We'd have been out of business long ago if we offered that.

That is what I expected.The sidstar syntax we use cannot encode an approach that doesn't terminate at a runway, and by definition circling approaches do not terminate at one specific runway. Note the FAA charts for an approach like VOR-F does not have a runway in the title as does a typical VOR approach, which would be titled VOR RNW 04. Also, there are no straight-in minima in the miminums table. In a way, a circling approach can be considered an IFR approach until MDA then either you fly to the runway maintaining visual contact or you go around. Minimums are generally higher for circling.

Dan,However.I checked further in Level-D for these same NavData procedures:APPROACH VOR04Is present in PMDG procedures.<Approach Name="VOR04"> RWY04Is present in Level-D procedures.VOR-FNot in present PMDG procedures.<Approach Name="VORDF"> for RWY04Is present in Level-D procedures.VOR/DME-GNot in present PMDG procedures.<Approach Name="VORDG"> RWY22Is present in Level-D procedures.VOR/DME-HNot in present PMDG procedures.<Approach Name="VORDH"> RWY13Is present in Level-D procedures.Not in PMDG or Level-D:RNAV(GPS)-B, ...... for RWY22 NISIY, COHOP, TIYUKLDA-A, ............ for RWY22, CASLE, COHOP,

Level-D uses xml encoded files, I believe. We have asked for ARINC 424 navdata format, which would be a step into the future but I don't think we are going to see it for awhile. Good or bad, we are stuck with the macro language syntax found in the sidstar files.One could write up a sidstar file where VOR-F is presented as VORF.22, VORF.04, etc., and each enumeration terminates at a runway. I thought about doing that once, especially at KASE, but haven't found it at the top of my to do list yet.

Tom,Quick summary here:

I think you meant to write "Ken" here :(

Dan,I know what you are talking about.You are correct.I have spent countless hours writing custom procedures for Level-D just to get the undocumented procedures working.But if the plates are vaild.If the waypoints are there.The altitudes are there.We should be able to finger poke a procedure into the FMC/GPS, fly the plate down to minimums and land.The problem the OP has is no waypoints in the database for the old plate, first.And second, we do not know where the newest procedures are, to get a copy.Once we find the plate we can see if finger poking is an option.Or if the procedure id newer, we might be able to add it to the database.I further checked the Navigraph database for KLGA, reading the Level-D xml.Guess what?The procedures are wrong.The last waypoint is just RW, without a Lat/Lon.So, I will have to tell them.