This company http://www.austscene.com/ creates Nav Data specifically for Australia, so does Navigraph but Navigraph does a terrible job and never updates anything for Australia. I contacted AustScene about adding a few airport for me, they where kind enough to add RNAV Approaches for Bundaberg, Tamworth and Port Macquarie. I took the JS41 up from Hervey bay and flew to Bundabeg (YBUD) rwy 14 and rwy 32 to test the RNAV Approaches. They went great accept for the fact that the Approaches legs didnt line up with the runway very well. I decided to look into the Map in FSX to see if the interstions where there and they where (I do have an update for FSX for nav data in Australia) I noticed that the coordinates in the FSX didn't match the ones in the Nav Data section under PMDG/SID/STARS in the FSX Root file. I look up the interections in the Sid/Stars folder and changed the coordinates to what they where in real-life (from looking at AIP and FSX Data), flew the approach and they still don't line me up with the runway.What do I do, can this be fixed, and I missing something?Cheers

In the US I can resolve correct fix coordinates with either FAA aeronautical data available on CDROM or from airnav.com; anything similar for down there?Given the exact coordinates of the runway ends (thereby eliminating any mag deviation errors) you can calculate fix coordinates on an extended runway centerline. Does the published approach indicate any deviation? And, keep in mind that the accuracy of a GPS approach will not get you directly to the end of the runway unless it has RNP or GLS accuracy, which depends on available WAAS and onboard equipment.

Ya, I have the "correct" coordinated from the Australian AIP and I put them into the "fixes" part of the navdata and also checked in the sid/star file where the actual airport is located to see if I needed to change anything in there which I did not. I'm beginning to wonder if maybe ORBX has there airport a tiny tiny bit off of where it's suppose to be. It's not a huge deal but I'd say it's about 130 feet or so off center...am I being to picky. In real-life if you flew an RNAV only approach and you broke out at min's and you where say 130 off the centerline but ON the centerline as far as the CDI is concerned would you consider that to be acceptable, acceptable as far as current GPS standards? Remember it's not RNP WAAS or GLS just plain old RNAV but I'd like to get it as real life as possible and I want to be able to fly this approach in the NGX to the minimums!Thanks for the help Dan.

If you get the ADE9X editor from:http://www.scruffyduck.org.uk/filemanager/navega.php?id=2&PHPSESSID=f2e187a35be6d3a9de8c513a045f72e2 setting it up for your version of FS. May as well get documentation and tutorials as well.Load the equivalent scenery AFCAD file into it using Load Airport from BGL.You can then check out the view features, turning on its navaid view just for comparison, and work your way around the diagram and lists to get the scenery coordinates. You can also switch to the Approach Editor you which will show you the location of any waypoints coded into that scenery and get those coordinates. Those waypoint if they exist are used in the default GPS and by AI.You can check your airport component coordinates there against your AIP diagrams.I would back up that airport scenery folder just in case copying the folder outside of FS somewhere in case you want to restore a file.

This company http://www.austscene.com/ creates Nav Data specifically for Australia, so does Navigraph but Navigraph does a terrible job and never updates anything for Australia. I contacted AustScene about adding a few airport for me, they where kind enough to add RNAV Approaches for Bundaberg, Tamworth and Port Macquarie. I took the JS41 up from Hervey bay and flew to Bundabeg (YBUD) rwy 14 and rwy 32 to test the RNAV Approaches. They went great accept for the fact that the Approaches legs didnt line up with the runway very well. I decided to look into the Map in FSX to see if the interstions where there and they where (I do have an update for FSX for nav data in Australia) I noticed that the coordinates in the FSX didn't match the ones in the Nav Data section under PMDG/SID/STARS in the FSX Root file. I look up the interections in the Sid/Stars folder and changed the coordinates to what they where in real-life (from looking at AIP and FSX Data), flew the approach and they still don't line me up with the runway.What do I do, can this be fixed, and I missing something?Cheers

Hi Ron,I can't agree with re Navigraph and Australian charts. I am a subscriber to the Australian edition of the Jeppesen airways manual and find that Navigraph are pretty well up to date as far as the SIDs, STARs and approach plates are concerned.Neil Bradley

I would think that these questions are all something you'd want to ask the people making the procedures - all our planes are doing is displaying what they give the FMS. I very much doubt ORBX has their airport locations off though, those guys are accuracy freaks.

I would think that these questions are all something you'd want to ask the people making the procedures - all our planes are doing is displaying what they give the FMS. I very much doubt ORBX has their airport locations off though, those guys are accuracy freaks.

Navigraph will not fix procedures that are outdated until its"provider" gives them new data, which means never, because I've asked them several time. I know its not PMDG problem but a lot of people on here know a lot about this kind of thing which is why I asked

If using the RNAV approach via LNAV, won't tuning the nav 1 radio to an available localizer frequency raw data display on the CDI on the PFD display for comparison? You just don't engage VOR/LOC or APP for an RNAV approach, correct?If the RNAV waypoint coordinates match the scenery LLZ raw data the CDI H indication should keep nearly centered even though it is not coupled to the A/P.The CDI deflection is controlled by the scenery placement of the LLZ transmitter and its coded heading. If the scenery is moved with respect to RNAV runway coordinates then the indicator would be off center. Just an additional check for comparison with visual scenery.Real world quoting from the FAA Instrument Procedures Handbook dated 2004 (my hardcopy version) it states that the definition of RNAV criteria no longer is dependent on ground based navaids. A stand-alone RNAV/GPS approach must be designed so that the final approach course must be aligned within 15 degrees of the extended runway center line. The final approach segment should not exceed 10 nm and if exceeds 6 nm a step down fix should be provided. There are also comments on VNAV but I'll leave that out since the OP states it is a horizontal offset problem.The published visibility limits are one-half mile (2400 feet) for LNAV and LPV (WAAS) approaches. 1 1/4 mile (6,000 feet) visibility may be required for RNAV/VNAV based on Baro-VNAV reference which can only be used under certain environmental conditions. The altitude minimums depend on the type of vertical guidance with 700 feet AGL minimum descent altitude for an LNAV only. (If an aircraft meets a required navigation performance score using an 'electronic vertical guidance' then DA's are lower.)These rules may have changed in the more recent published on-line version ( http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/ Instrument Procedures Handbook Chapter 5 Approach page 20 on). I referenced the 2004 edition I have.I am attaching two images, minima for KMSP RWY 35. The first is RNAV and the second is LOC/ILS from current published approach plates for comparison. Note the extended forward visibility for airliner category C and D performance of about one mile (CAT 1). The point is that should be enough to line up on a 130 foot offset if it occurs.Last there are posts here in this forum about incorrect FS registry entries or incorrect magnetic deviation files fouling up approrach center line alignment near the threshold.

Hi Ron,YBUD hasn't been moved, but with orthogonally rectified imagery there is always potentially some error.Whilst building the scenery, I was astounded at how well some of the vector data matched up (powerlines, rivers etc)I would say the location is as accurate as it could be. Whether it will match independently entered navdata, however remains to be seen!