tommy1-8706:

Quote:

---

Flt Sim 2004 instals IPKN as a Localiser with course 120 degrees.

---

That program has many errors. It was written by programmers, not experienced pilots.

It's a game, not a simulator.:)

PBL:

I can only speak to the process in the U.S.

1. Survey issues and significant missed obstacles are resolved in initial flight inspection.

2. Source data for government chart-makers and third-party chart-makers is often, but not always, identical.

3. Errors in procedural data notes, such as uncovered in this thread at ASE, are a very weak link in the process, but this affects charts, not databases. And, incorrect or confusing procedural notes tend to create a "primrose path."

4. The FAA itself shows its own doubts about database integrity by requiring a second round of very controlled nav database verification for RNP AR IAPs (the "golden database.") (RNP AR is being terribly overused in the U.S., and well beyond its intended purpose, but that would make for its own thread.)

Aterpster

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the overuse of RNP AR IAPs, either here, in a separate thread or off-line. I can PM an email address, if you rather

GF

gf:

Example: KGPI Runway 20, great application; Runwy 2, unnecessary.

Example: KRDU, all runways unecessary except for presumed fewer (green) flight path miles. This is like killing flies with a shot gun. But, the FAA and ICAO failed to develop comparable flight path criteria for fuel savings and non-critical obstacle clearance.

It took some time but the FAA issued these NOTAM amendments today:

!FDC 1/3701 ASE FI/P ASPEN-PITKIN CO/SARDY FIELD, ASPEN, CO. VOR/DME OR GPS C, AMDT 4F... CHART PLANVIEW NOTE: I-PKN BACK COURSE OUTBOUND IS NORMAL SENSING. THIS IS VOR/DME OR GPS C, AMDT 4G.

!FDC 1/3699 ASE FI/P ASPEN-PITKIN CO/SARDY FIELD, ASPEN, CO. LOC/DME E, AMDT 1... CHART PLANVIEW NOTE: DUAL VHF NAVIGATION RECEIVERS REQUIRED. THIS IS LOC/DME E, AMDT 1A.

Good job. Another great mystery solved (and fixed).