Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
tango4

FMC Computed GP in Database approaches, curious difference B737/777

Recommended Posts

HI everyone,

I have a question regarding the way the FMC displays a GP indication in the legs page between 2 waypoints in a database approach.

The understanding I have is that normally, VNAV computes an IDLE descent path between 2 waypoints, and if not possible, then it will respect the contraints (ALT and SPD).

All that is true, EXCEPT when in approach mode, where it has to follow a published GP.

The way I understood things, the decision to have a GP 3.00° for example between 2 waypoints comes from the database, and not the FMC, because it means the procedure has been designed as such.

According to some readings, I expected to see a GP in the legs page even for an ILS approach (although of course you won't fly it in VNAV), which is clearly not the case, at least not everywhere.

I used the example of LFPG ILS26R in the screenshots below, using the latest NAVDATAPRO cycle (I had basically the the same results with an older Navigraph cycle).

I initially thought that the "issue" came from the database itself, but the curious thing is that it is not displayed in the same way in the B737 and the B777 !

Here are two screenshots of the same procedure, of course with the same common database, in the B737 and the B777:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/evikvadq9yid97b/2015-09-29_00001.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cpd21eubwt4vnky/2015-09-29_00004.jpg?dl=0

 

 

In the first case, there is no Glide, and in the second case, yes (between PGS532 and RW26R).

 

Can anyone explain this ? I know these two FMS are not from the same manufacturer, but from what I read, I did not expect to see any difference here.

 

Best regards everyone.


Charles MOULIN

LFPG ATC

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


but from what I read, I did not expect to see any difference here.

 

From what you read: Great, you have a reference. What is it?

 

You should expect differences between 777 and 737 FMS. There are many.  In particular, the NGX is modelled with a version of FMS software that includes IAN. See FCOM section 11.43 for descent and approach section on use of FMS.

 

I am just guess that it is the IAN feature involved here, hopefully your reference will help shed light on why there are differences.


Dan Downs KCRP

Share this post


Link to post

Here is my source: (FMC 737 Bulfer guide)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gxnnoqmo7mpjuya/bulfer.jpg?dl=0

(the first 3 paragraphs).

As you can read in my message, I AM expecting differences in those FMS.

It's just this one does not make sense to ME and I wanted to know if someone could explain it.

As mentioned in this document GP is defined in the database, so I don't understand why it would show up differently in those 2 FMS.

 

I already thought about IAN but this involves non ILS approaches, and the example I mentioned is an ILS. And as I understand it IAN is the WAY of performing the approach which is different from VNAV (the "standard" way). But IAN needs accurate data also, so that still doesn't make sense to me.

 

Charles


Charles MOULIN

LFPG ATC

Share this post


Link to post

Not our navigation data, unfortunately. Our glide paths are not included in the synatax that defines our navdata. Basically, the only vertical navigation data is the altitude constraint. So for example, if the approach is non-ILS the FAF is usually in the data as something like "FIX ABCDE AT OR ABOVE XXXX" and the NGX FMS is not going to provide a GP angle. Change it from conditional to hard altitude constraint and I think the FMS might display the angle.... not positive since most my time is in the 777.

 

Bottom line, your excellent source does not apply in the simulation. We are all looking forward to the introduction of better navdata in PMDG products, but its not there yet.


Dan Downs KCRP

Share this post


Link to post

There are no gradient path angles defined in the PMDG nav data - you are seeing computed angles.

 

DJ

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks guys, that clearly makes sense now !

 

All the best.

 

Charles


Charles MOULIN

LFPG ATC

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    18%
    $4,700.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...