Form to use when reporting Flightplan and/or FMGC Issues

[Bob Lyddy 606]

All - 

Please use the below form when reporting Fligthplan and/or FMGC issues.  This will allow us to track, identify and resolve.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfx0oF3QLExnjOZJCJgwAvOPtZd51XzNYNJgQTUMZ0ROY8i0g/viewform

 

[Ju_li_en Ke_ml_er 242]

I just filled a form to report a lateral navigation problem from MNMG to MHTG RNAV02 via TNT.

The path between TG018 and TG015 is not displaying correctly (see pics)

I haven't flown the route so I don't know if its just a graphical bug or if the plane would follow the wrong path

[Ju_li_en Ke_ml_er 242]

I tried to fly despite the strange path. the plane flew as drawn on the ND, then during the wrong part of the path between TG018 and TG015 the autopilot disconected and I lost the left click on my mouse. The right click was still functionnal.

The cursor was the arrow that you get when pressing alt to look with the mouse.

[Ju_li_en Ke_ml_er 242]

I'm adding the chart so you can see what it should look like

[Chirag Geiantilal 74]

9 hours ago, jjk said:

I just filled a form to report a lateral navigation problem from MNMG to MHTG RNAV02 via TNT.

The path between TG018 and TG015 is not displaying correctly (see pics)

I haven't flown the route so I don't know if its just a graphical bug or if the plane would follow the wrong path

Sorry for off-topic,

But look at status ECAM page, nothing is shown, is that normal?

[Ju_li_en Ke_ml_er 242]

2 hours ago, cgentil said:

Sorry for off-topic,

But look at status ECAM page, nothing is shown, is that normal?

Not sure but I don't think it displays the normal memo when engines are off.

[Chris Pawley 4]

Images to match the report made this afternoon.

 

[Flying 2]

Here another one, after reaching D178E it should turn on track 360 inbound SOKVA, but it turns inbound VOR for some reason.

 

I also noticed that T/C pseudo waypoint shows FL40 and next waypoint SOKVA shows altitude 4000 ( which is correct since TA is 5000ft)

 

Is it possible to set Holding over PPOS waypoint? I mean if I want to hold over present position, because I was unable to set hold. I can enter lateral revision for PPOS, I can modify holding, but after entering it to current FPL nothing happens, no HOLDING Pattern presented.

 

Best regards.

[Martin Stewart 23]

On ‎19‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 7:04 PM, jjk said:

I just filled a form to report a lateral navigation problem from MNMG to MHTG RNAV02 via TNT.

The path between TG018 and TG015 is not displaying correctly (see pics)

I haven't flown the route so I don't know if its just a graphical bug or if the plane would follow the wrong path

G'day jjk,

this one made me curious so I checked the Navigraph data (AIRAC 1607) for the waypoints and RF in question.

The waypoints' latitude and longitude for TG018, TG015 and the arc centre TG0R4 are spot on. The procedure data for this arc in the nav database defines a radius of 4.99NM and a total distance travelled of 15.9NM between TG018 and TG015.

If the distances are calculated using the raw lat and lon data, these are indeed what you find....distance between TG0R4 and TG018 = 5.00NM, between TG0R4 and TG015 = 4.99NM, angle subtended by the arc using Place Bearing Distance logic is 182.1° which with simple elementary maths gives an arc distance of 15.89NM.

This is all exactly what the nav data defines.

 

It will be interesting to see why this was drawn in this way in the ND considering the nav data is spot on.

Regards,    Martin  YBLT

[Martin Stewart 23]

G'day again jjk,

I have included an image of the CAD drawing I did to visualise the data.

Regards,    Martin  YBLT

[Ju_li_en Ke_ml_er 242]

@stewamar I hope they find where the problem is. This approach is really fun and I'm impatient to be able to fly it correctly.

[Ju_li_en Ke_ml_er 242]

@stewamar Unfortunately I couldn't check the database for the 320 because it is a *.rom

What convertion did you use to get from gps coordinates to nautical miles ?

I checked in the database aerosoft uses  for its 320, I plotted the 3 points using the raw coordinates and although they were corectly aligned, I ended up with an arc that was 26.94 units long and 16.9 units between TG015 and TG018.

I say units because I'm what you get when you plot points using GPS coordinates on a plan and mesure distance between them.

Anyway, there might be a conversion error when drawing the arc because if you look at my screenshot it looks like the arc drawn is indeed 16.9NM in diameter.

 

[Ju_li_en Ke_ml_er 242]

New screenshots from the .172 to go with the report.

 

[Davide Cutugno 4]

From the Module form that i compiled here are files and description of the problem:

ARRIVAL TRANSITION-VIA MUS FLTPLAN issue with FMGC if i insert the transition MUS for arrival 04R it creates fltplan disco not erasable and ND depict wrong line going nowhere, as you can see from pictures i upload and the OFP simple to replicate on your side, so something is wrong...

 

LFBO-LFMN-OFP.pdf

[Konstantinos Kioussis 242]

Correct. DISCONT after a MANUAL is not erasable, you need to erase MANUAL first.

[Davide Cutugno 4]

Thanks, but look at the temp fltplan it looks wrong...so i didn't activate...

[Haseen Ahmad 0]

I submitted a form mentioning FMGC DIR function issue sometime ago. How to find the form?

[Anatoliy 7]

Wrong drawing of SID RNW24 UMKK BENAL 1E.
According to the charts plane should turn left to the 030 degrees at D3.2 from KRD and then right turn on interception R095 from KRD towards BENAL. But actually on ND it was drawn directly to the opposite direction like if plane would take off from RNW06.

 

[N125DL 0]

LGIR, RWY 27 EPALO1G departure, two pseudo waypoints missing:

 

Original procedure states:

at 600 RT (MAX 210KT, MNM 15° bank) intercept R303 IRA - at D10 IRA RT 020° intercept R335 IRA to EPALO

 

As you can see, the 600ft and INTCPT pseudo waypoints are missing. This problem occoured only after installing a new set of default navigation aids to the FS, as recommended. The relevant navigation aid (IRA VOR) exists and can be tuned/identified.

[Carl_Beeby 26]

Hi,

Just submitted a report via google docs - pic below showing the behaviour I described. From KEA it attempts to return north to VEKEN SABAD and NERRA.

It does not include LAPSO/N0457F390 UN132 KUMBI L612 BLT
           A16 CVO L677 KAPIT  in the flight plan

Edit: Same position for the return flight, but I think this is a problem with the flight plan i.e. the ATC route.

Our journey back is IVUT1A KAPIT UL677 MENLI L677 CVO A1 NOZ L617 TANSA UL613
           YNN UL611 TUMBO/N0454F380 UL611 KOFER DCT NAKIT UN606 BADOP UP66 KPT
           UL608 TEDGO UZ210 LAMGO UM150 KRH UZ210 LIRSU DCT BUB UL608 COA UL179
           SASKI UL608 SUMUM UY6 IDESI ABOT1C

I have entered manually but I did not know how to enter the part of TUMBO. But there is something strange as I got a similar return south aroudn this part  YNN UL611 TUMBO/N0454F380 UL611 KOFER DCT NAKIT

As I say, I don't believe this is the FSLabs causing this, as I got the same entering manually.

 

[A_ndré_F_olkers 118]

Submitted the form with the issue continues calculating of T/C and T/D maybe due to bad Navigraph data.

 

[Martin Stewart 23]

Just completed the request form in regard to NZQN approaches not presenting as options when entering a flight plan. This issue occurs when I used Navigraph 1608, 1609 and 1610 AIRACs. There are 4 approaches in the database (2 for each runway) and they are RNVF, RNVG, VDMB and VDMC. The only approaches offered are straight in approaches from a phantom waypoint 5nm away from the threshold on the runway heading. Images of the FMGC are shown.....

The STARs load perfectly.

The RNVF approach fills the gap between IBABU and NZQN RW05

Regards,   Martin  YBLT

[Chad Bramwell 17]

Hi Martin,

This might have to do with the fact that the 4 mentioned approaches are circling only, which might not be showing due to FMS limitations.

The RNP AR approaches offering straight-in minima (e.g. RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 05) are usually only available to individual customers on demand, thus not in the standard database.

[Konstantinos Kioussis 242]

Yeap. indeed there are "limitations" on what providers ( Navigraph or NavDataPro ) can provide us, for instance "proprietary"  procedures like these on Queenstown are NOT available.

[Martin Stewart 23]

G'day Chad and Konstantinos,

thank you very much for your replies and it now makes perfect sense that the "Procedure with Circle-To-Land Minimums" is not displayed in the F-Plan even though there waypoints coded for them in the database.

By the way, do either of you know why the propriety approaches cannot be added even if someone develops the code from first principles working off the public domain charts? After all, the data is for simulation purposes only!

Regards, Martin (YBLT)

[sebagana19 9]

Hello, I have problems with database and MCDU today I flew at Cucuta, Colombia and when select a SID ESITU1C I have this problem.

 

the first picture correspond the original airplane database and is ok

the second picture correspond the last database 1610 from aerosoft and is wrong

the last picture is the sid chart ESITU1C 

all calculations are with the same speeds and weights 

thanks

[NilsUnger 987]

On 23.9.2016 at 3:57 AM, stewamar said:

By the way, do either of you know why the propriety approaches cannot be added even if someone develops the code from first principles working off the public domain charts? After all, the data is for simulation purposes only!

Regards, Martin (YBLT)

I think the sole reason is that the file containing the data is not editable with only a text editor. It is encoded or encrypted (don't know the terminology). IMHO a very bad idea, unfortunately.

Edit: I want to take back my last statement, as I don't know whether there are technical or contractual or other reasons why FSL has chosen to make the data non editable. But it is still a pity.

Edited October 2, 2016 by dermobb

[Martin_Beauchemin 0]

My issue doesn't have to do with flightplanning so I just included pictures of the MCDU. Basically, no matter what cost index I select, the managed cruise speed is Mach .80 (as demonstrated in the attached pictues and same with the climb. This means I can never climb in managed mode or it will take a century to get to cruise level and when in cruise, if I want a lower or higher cruise speed than Mach .80 it appears that I'm SOL. This issue is new with the update and I've already tried re-installing following the instructions in the manual. I don't want to revert back to the older version though because this update fixed the multitude of issues I had with the FMGS prior. I can work around this problem by climbing in open-climb mode and selecting a slower more reasonable climb speed (I usually select 300-310 knots and then Mach .76 once I get a little higher) and to preselect the cruise speed as I did in the picture. My flight plan showed .79 with a 60 cost index so I set that.