On the other hand, ATC will want to prioritise those with equipment. When you have better equipment, you take up less 'space'. With ADS-C over the ocean, you only take up 30 NM rather than the normal 50 NM separation that is applied for RNP aircraft. With ADS-B, you only take up 5 NM rather than what ever procedural standard would otherwise be applied, plus ATC can vector you, etc.

 

Again, same thing with RF approaches in busy airspace. If you can be cleared along a track that keeps you away from busy corridors, it's easier to give you space to conduct your approach. Makes life easier for everyone!

On the other hand, ATC will want to prioritise those with equipment.

 

Yes and no. Currently, even with the advances in our (FAA) adoption of the ICAO 2012 flight plan, it's very difficult for controllers to know if you can take procedures that require aircraft and crew certifications.

 

There are a few tools in development that intend to solve this issue.

 

You are right, though, in that it's a lot easier for ATC to say (to an aircraft on the BARIN1) "cross TRING at 4000, cleared RNAV RNP Z Runway 19 approach," instead of all of the vectoring around for the ILS.

Navigraph has a parser that turns the ARINC 424 data into our format. If we add RF support all they need to do is write a new parser rule.

 

Over a year has passed since this statement from Ryan. I wanted to ask this again for a long time now. Seems to me, after the 777 is in wide beta now, this might be the right time:

 

Will rf (radius to fix) legs be supportet? Pretty please...

Good question! I believe the answer is no since they answered at the time it would require A LOT of effort to make this transition, and this would affect the PMDG 737NGX also, since it would require a completely new format of Navdata.

 

I do hope it's in their future plans!

 

 

it would require A LOT of effort to make this transition,

 

I guess it would require a fair bit... but sooner or later I think this will have to be done, so why not now?

 

 

 

and this would affect the PMDG 737NGX also, since it would require a completely new format of Navdata.

 

I fail to see how it would affect the NGX in the initial release. Simply you would have PMDG data (NGX and older) and PMDG 777 data. Later it might get put into NGX SP2 or so, and you get PMDG data (NGX SP1 and older) and PMDG data (NGX SP2 and 777 or newer)

Would be great to hear if this has been implemented.

I have a bunch of RNP procedures for the NGX for all of Westjet.  They were built by a friend, and they all fly perfectly.  

Is anyone using Aerosoft for the PMDG 737 NGX nav database?

 

I am not too happy with Navigraphs service and would like to try something else if that works well!

Is anyone using Aerosoft for the PMDG 737 NGX nav database?

 

I am not too happy with Navigraphs service and would like to try something else if that works well!

I use it and love it.

I use it and love it.

 

What is different to it over Navigraph?

What is different to it over Navigraph?

I just feel that the way everything that is handled is better, ie: how it installs. Also I have found less errors in the database. Overall I feel it is much better product. 

Thx Ian, good to know :-)

There is certainly publicly available data now for curved approaches, with Airservices Australia publishing the public use "multi-variant design" approach charts and corresponding data on their website. I haven't checked the Navigraph/Aerosoft navigation data to see if they are now included (obviously they won't be for the PMDG version) but it is now certainly quite possible to have these programmed in.

 

A rethink of the navigation database would be a good idea for PMDG: there is quite a bit of data that the navigation data suppliers drop or fudge when converting to the PMDG format. Transition Altitude for each airport is the most obvious. The ARINC standard has procedure turns as a leg type, enabling all of the parameters to simply be coded in - for the PMDG database, extra pseudo-waypoints have to be added, not unlike how DME arcs are currently handled.

 

Of course, I'm sure everyone would prefer for this to happen AFTER the release of the 777

Sorry to stray a little into competitors products but...

 

I can confirm real world, Auckland Airport (NZAA) has started using RNP-AR approaches and so has Queenstown Airport (NZQN).

 

I can also confirm 100% that in the latest Navigraph data (specifically the Aerosoft Airbus X) has the NZAA 05R and 23L RNP-AR Yankee and X-Ray approaches listed in the FMS. As the Aerosoft Airbus X cannot fly RF Legs, it cannot hold the turns, but they are listed and the waypoints correct. 

 

I have tested this several times in the Aerosoft Airbus and iFly 738 - the iFly was the closest at holding the approaches.  I have been told the Blackbox Airbus does not support RF legs either but have not tested this.

 

Also, I believe RNP approaches do not utilise RF Legs, but RNP-AR approaches utilise RF Legs.

RNP and RNP-AR don't relate to whether the approach uses RF legs. The "AR" stands for "Authorization Required" - these approaches require specific approval (approval for each approach) from the regulator, rather than a general approval.

 

Indeed there are RNP-AR approaches being flown by Qantas and Jetstar which are simply a straight line.