Hello people
I wanted to ask what you find better? I use Navigraph. Is that true that there are problems with the 777 with NavDataPro?

I have not seen any problems with the 777 using NavDataPro... Of course, someone else's mileage may vary.

I've never had the first problem except when I do something wrong.

 

Don Baker

I prefer navdatspro. In the base both are quite the same. U will find the difference in the details.

I switched back to Navigraph. Also Navigraph now supports TopCat.

Hi,

 

I got bad experience with navigraph by the past regarding missing or wrong SID/STAR procedures and I now use NavDataPro with which I don't have any issue with the T7 nor any other addons/softwares.

I still use Navigraph for some not covered yet by Aerosoft's (like Topcat).

I thing however that by now both should have a very similar level of accuracy.

I switched to NavDataPro in July last year. I do not regret it one bit. So easy updating PFPX & PMDG in one program - never had a bad cycle (unlike what I constantly see with Navigraph). Plus NDP has properly named fixes for conventional navigation SID/STARs. For example a final approach fix into Heathrow should look like "ILL04", as it is on my charts. Unlike Navigraph they're named quite random so it seems...  

Thanks for the info, I will then test times NavDataPro.

I switched to NavDataPro in July last year. I do not regret it one bit. So easy updating PFPX & PMDG in one program - never had a bad cycle (unlike what I constantly see with Navigraph). Plus NDP has properly named fixes for conventional navigation SID/STARs. For example a final approach fix into Heathrow should look like "ILL04", as it is on my charts. Unlike Navigraph they're named quite random so it seems...  

Luke, did you find any differences in the database?  ie approaches that exist in one database but not in the other? I am going to subscribe to one or the other this weekend, and I guess my concern is choosing one that doesnt quite have all procedures I wish to look at. From your experience, did you find anything of note?

NDP takes data from Lufthansa Systems, whilst the source of Navigraph is anyone's guess.

 

From what I've heard NDP is the way to go.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

 

 

whilst the source of Navigraph is anyone's guess

 

Navigraph FMS Data is derived from several professional sources - including but not limited to Jeppesen and Navtech - merged

 

 

And is my choice having used both.

I switched to NavDataPro in July last year. I do not regret it one bit. So easy updating PFPX & PMDG in one program - never had a bad cycle (unlike what I constantly see with Navigraph). Plus NDP has properly named fixes for conventional navigation SID/STARs. For example a final approach fix into Heathrow should look like "ILL04", as it is on my charts. Unlike Navigraph they're named quite random so it seems...  

 

Thats very well spotted. This example shows one of the major differences between Lufthansa Systems and Jeppesen:

 

Lufthansa Systems always uses the DME Identifier for Final Approach fixes, whereas Jeppesen sticks to the ARINC 424 Naming Convention.

 

e.g. FI27R = Final Approach Fix ILS RWY 27R

 

 

That naming convention was one of the contributing factors to the cali accident:

 

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Cali/calirep.html

 

3.3 Contributing Factors

4. FMS-generated navigational information that used a different naming convention from that published in navigational charts.

 

 

Furthermore, considerable additional differences existed in the presentation of identical navigation information between that on the approach charts and that in the FMS data base, despite the fact that the same company supplied the data to both. For example, DME fixes for the Cali VOR DME runway 19 approach that were labeled on the charts as D-21 and D-16 were depicted on the FMS using a different nomenclature entirely, that is, CF19 and FF19. The company explained that it presented data in the FMS according to a naming convention, ARINC 424, developed for electronic data, while data presented on approach charts met requirements of government civil aviation authorities. 

 

Aeronautica Civil believes that the discrepancy between the approach chart and FMS presentation of data for the same approach can hinder the ability of pilots to execute an instrument approach, especially since flightcrews are expected to rely on both the FMS-generated display and the approach chart for information regarding the conduct of the approach. When two methods of presenting approach information depict important information differently or one readily show it at all, that information can be counterproductive to flightcrew performance in general, and their ability to prepare for an approach in particular. The lack of coordinated standards for the development and portrayal of aeronautical charts and FMS data bases and displays has led to a situation in which, not only are the charts and displays different in appearance, but the basic data are different. This lack of commonality is confusing, time consuming, and increases pilot workload during a critical phase of flight, the approach phase. Therefore, Aeronautica Civil urges the FAA to develop and implement standards for the portrayal of terminal environment information on FMS/electronic flight instruments (EFIS) displays that match, as closely as possible, the portrayal of that information on approach charts. Furthermore, until such time as the differences between FMS-based navigation data and data on approach and navigation charts is eliminated to the extent possible, Aeronautica Civil believes that the FAA should require the Jeppesen-Sanderson Company to inform airlines operating glass cockpit aircraft of the presence of each difference in the naming or portrayal of navigation information on FMS-generated and approach chart information, and require airlines to inform their flightcrews of these differences.

 

Those who want to know more about the ARINC 424 Conventions:

 

http://www.keilir.net/static/files/Flugakademian/PDF/rnavmanual-kka.pdf

 

 

 

Jan-Paul

Luke, did you find any differences in the database?  ie approaches that exist in one database but not in the other? I am going to subscribe to one or the other this weekend, and I guess my concern is choosing one that doesnt quite have all procedures I wish to look at. From your experience, did you find anything of note?

 

Got to be honest.... I've only used NDP in the 777 and I've spent about 700+ hours in it. I can't remember much from my flights before in the NGX/LDS 763 whilst using Navigraph. I've never not had an active SID/STAR/Airway/Fix/NavAid in my time using NDP though. Always concurring with my active charts  ^_^

 

 

Thats very well spotted.

 

Thanks for the info Jan! Something I really wish LIDO did, was either team up with a company or do it themselves to publish charts for simming. I know they've had the idea. There's an app in the app store which was built for flight sim/enthusiasts - which gives you 50 or so of the international airports, kept current each month. I absolutely love their charts, just like the pilots and airlines! BA just signed a deal with them too and are no longer with NavTech for plates. Hopefully my future airline will give me the chance to try them for real!  :biggrin:

 

 

Thanks for the info Jan! Something I really wish LIDO did, was either team up with a company or do it themselves to publish charts for simming. I know they've had the idea. There's an app in the app store which was built for flight sim/enthusiasts - which gives you 50 or so of the international airports, kept current each month. I absolutely love their charts, just like the pilots and airlines! BA just signed a deal with them too and are no longer with NavTech for plates. Hopefully my future airline will give me the chance to try them for real! 

 

I know EK uses them as well as some UK charter outfits... so your chances are not bad. 

 

And I second your wish - I'd LOVE them to offer something like that. I'd pay good money, too. IIRC there is a comment somewhere on LIDO website that said they were considering it for the future.

I know EK uses them as well as some UK charter outfits... so your chances are not bad. 

 

And I second your wish - I'd LOVE them to offer something like that. I'd pay good money, too. IIRC there is a comment somewhere on LIDO website that said they were considering it for the future.

 

Yeah it seems most cockpits I see nowadays there's Lido on the side LOL.