Have a look here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARINC_424

 

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_procedures_handbook/media/appndxA1.pdf

 

 

Jan-Paul

Robert,

 

that is GREAT news!

 

So now we will have three developers supporting full ARINC format it seems. Life is good. Now I just need full LIDO/RouteManual access :)

Yeah, I've seen this occur way too many times to be just an isolated error. I hardly trust the Navigraph Stars or Sids as I see them in the FMC, I always have to pull up a chart and cross reference.

 

This is a standard part of FMS use in any real life aircraft actually - you always confirm what you've entered with what's on the official charts. Navdata even in real life is not certified to be perfect. More than a couple crashes have occurred in real life due to the failure to cross check this stuff. (the AAL 757 in Cali, Colombia being one of the worst incidents)

For what it's worth, for everyone who's knocking the data, remember that these guys are managing data for just about every airport in the world. Go ahead and manage just FAA data - nevermind the world - and not make any mistakes and then let me know how easy it is. Data isn't as easy as you think it is.

 

Anyone ever stop to think of why there was only one provider for so long?

 

To be fair, Navigraph data is very accurate, but I without fail I always see at least one or two crossing restrictions missing. Don't know how many here are KPHL "frequent flyers", but the Navigraph BOJID1 star is missing a vital transition to either runway 9 or 27, and I always have to type in the missing legs, very tedious work.

 

Anyhow, cross referencing with paper charts Is probably more realistic, I'm sure the real world crews don't take the route data in their FMCs at face value either.

 

As Ryan said, you always cross reference with charts when flying. In the end, the FAA is going to come down on you as the pilot, not the aircraft manufacturer, or whoever provided the data. The FARs are very specific about who is responsible for the operation of the aircraft, and in the end they don't make a distinction about what flies the aircraft (AP or human), and via what navigation (pilotage, VORs, INS, GPS), as long as it flies correctly and flies what is assigned.

 

Are you sure these are hard crossing restrictions, and not expected restrictions? I've seen some hard restrictions are off in certain cases, so I don't doubt you, but a lot of people expect the expected stuff to be in there too.

 

So what PMDG aircraft will support RF leg types and approximately when?

 

Look a little harder for the answer next time. You passed right by it. You can't get any more official than this, either:

 

The timing of this availability will depend on a number of factors so I am not able to give you a timeline, but when it does happen it will be an option for the NGX, 777 and 747-400v2.0...

 

It will not be rolled back to any products released earlier then the NGX however!

(Emphasis mine)

Look a little harder for the answer next time. You passed right by it. You can't get any more official than this, either:

 

You are quite right. Not sure why I didn't pick that up. I guess after reading untold posts that day I just scrolled right on past it.

It would be interesting to know what the technical challenges are with the implementation of RF leg types and what priority PMDG give it.

They sure make for very interesting approaches and are being increasingly used. Take the RNP (AR) approaches into Queenstown, New Zealand (NZQN) as an example.

Amazing approaches to fly.

Aerosoft is looking for Betatesters of NavdataPro. (see aerosoft forum)

 

@PMDG: Is anyone of the PMDG Members going to participate?

 

Best Regards,

 

Jan-Paul