abax2000 Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 Sorry beforehand if this is already answered elsewhere. In such case, please direct to the info. Where a map legend can be found (explaining explicitly things like 3000+ or 5000- etc)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG_Flyer Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Apostolos, Ummm... that's a good question. Currently my answer would be "Right now, I'm compiling a legend in my head," but that would be no good for anyone. Least of all, me. I'll start making notes and grabbing screenshots for the next version of the Operations Manual. If there's anything in particular you or anyone else would like to see / know, drop a description - or a tightly cropped screenshot - in this thread. 3000+ would be a reference to a point on a SID / STAR / Approach chart where the aircraft should be at 3000ft or higher. ("Minimum altitude.") 5000- is a little misleading but that should likewise indicate a point where the aircraft should be no greater than 5000ft in altitude. ("Maximum altitude.") Therefore 4000 would be a reference to a point where the aircraft should be at 4000ft. ("Recommended altitude.") These are slighly different than FAA charts for example, so your asking for a legend is a good thing. Thanks! Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abax2000 Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 Hi Travis, as you mention, there are differences in notation used depending on the publisher and this makes things more complicated. Take for example SIDs for EGNM (just because it was the last in which I noted some ambiguities ). If you look at the latest available Navigraph published SID South, Southwest (p.30-1, 21 OCT 08) all is quite clear (if you take into consideration Navigraph legend also). 1. If you look at SID Rwy 32:POL1W in EFB, there are two issues: altitude ambiguity (as to what published altitudes exactly mean, and not the absolute figures which are correct). 2. distances/references of the first waypoints (05DME, 21DME, 35DME) are referring to a diffrerent navaid (to POL and not ILF). And the problem here is that, although geographically correct, the used references are very awkward to be used in flight (while the ones used in actual Navigraph map are the correct ones for inflight use). The two points above (when present) make the inflight use of EFB somewhat awkward; your only choice is autopilot on GPS mode (mainly because of point 2) and still not certain if you are procedure-compliant (because of point1). best regards, Apostolos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG_Flyer Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Hi Apostolos, I do not have the Navigraph chart for EGNM, but I have looked at the real-world SID chart and I see the differences. (I am also using AIRAC 1004 data with EFB, but I do not think we have vastly different AIRACs.) 1. The altitude values and modifiers that are noted in EFB come from what Navigraph supplies us with. In their data, there are 3 different altitude value modifiers which essentially are "Equals nnnn," "Greater Than Or Equals nnnn," and "Less Than Or Equals nnnn." As far as I've seen, there is no "Exactly nnnn." 2. The majority of "waypoints" in the data include only an identifier (a name) and a longitude/latitude reference. Only a very few waypoints are defined as "DISTANCE / RADIAL FROM [VOR]" for example. For this SID, 5 of the 6 waypoints (inlcuding the 3 waypoints you mention) are given only as an ID and long/lat coordinates. D10.0 POL is the exception, being defined in the data as a "DISTANCE of 10NM on a RADIAL of 54 degrees from POL." [attachment=0]pol1w.png[/attachment] Now the pilot logic to this SID is "Take off and fly the runway heading. Turn left to intercept the 054 radial from POL, then fly to that point. Be at these altitude levels along the way." (That sounds very simple to me to fly without an autopilot or GPS.) EFB has to infer the reference and distance of the other 5 points. So essentially EFB takes that pilot logic and deduces that since POL is the "fly to" target, it should use POL as a DME reference for the other waypoints. (The LOC/DME of ILF is not even referred to in the Navigraph data for EGNM.) I will send you a PM within a few hours with more details. Best regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewulf47 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Well, there is no common charting standard however i.e. NACO and LIDO uses the following: UNDERLINED for altitudes AT or ABOVE OVERLINED (wonder what the correct expression for that is ) for altitudes AT or BELOW both UNDERLINED and OVERLINED for altitudes AT +/- signs are not used Whatever you use you should avoid a misleading combination of the two systems. Underlined AND a sign would be misleading. Oskar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG_Flyer Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Oskar, Glad you have you join us! Your point is well taken. (And "overline" is a proper term, so AFAIK it's well used here. ) I would offer as a counter that all real-world charts are drafted by humans who can lay out graphic and text elements cleanly and clearly. EFB plan charts are very dynamic - redrawn every second or so - where individual element types can be visible at a variety of zoom levels with the ability to have a very cluttered display at times. I've grown accustomed to looking for the underline as the altitude level with the +/- as the modifier. Still it might be worthwhile to investigate the option of displaying underline/overline/nil marking as opposed to +/-/_. Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewulf47 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 There are of course almost as many points of view as there are forum members however my personal point is that - coming from real world aviation and presently working in a company which produces Route Manuals - that it is always a bit confusing as the "automatic" part of my brain is still interpreting an underline as "at or above" (maybe 37 years of active aviation has left me a bit inflexible... ). In addition to that the shorthand for clearance notification (as it still can happen on a few exotic airfield where the whole ATC clearance is given by radio only) also uses exactly the same symbology with either underlined, overlined or both. So as a conclusion: if there will be a vote I will vote for that Oskar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abax2000 Posted July 24, 2010 Author Share Posted July 24, 2010 I am not a realworld pilot, but my understanding is according to Oscar's note. I attach also the relevant part of Navigraph legend (which is different, but still clear). As for "voting" for an amended notation in EFB, I would refrain as Oscar (and other real world aviation profs) can provide better consultation (at the end of the day the goal is "as real as it gets" and not "according to everyone's taste" ). Just please keep altitudes in bold and bigger font (as currently is). Closing remark from me on reference points: it is much more reliable and easy to have waypoints defined as DME distance from a navaid on a radial of which you are actually riding (for example, please see the other attachment). Then you easily know when to turn, in a quite busy part of flight. Being that said, I fully understand the programming and data restrictions Travis mentions. Regards, Apostolos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewulf47 Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Well, as you see there is not really a STANDARD in those notifications. Besides Jeppesen there are two more main competitors on the Route Manual (and thus charting) market - not talking about FMS databases where about a dozen main competitors share the market - which are Lufthansa FlightNav (known as LIDO) and EAG - the latter being used by Navigraph. My only concern in this topic was not to mix up two notation systems but to stick to ONE. I understand that underlining the altitude figures in EFB is meant to emphasize it's importance and improve visibility. As I said on my previous post: not really a big issue - just a personal concern and remark Oskar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aivlasoft Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Oskar, you mean this way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewulf47 Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Hi Urs, Yup, exactly ! Right on the spot Oskar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG_Flyer Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Just wanted to point out that Urs has changed the altitude constraints and has added a few new features to the latest beta build. Here's a screen that shows my personal favorite new feature - for those (like me) who aren't yet fluent in Morse: [attachment=0]egkk-rnav28r.png[/attachment] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewulf47 Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Uhmm, never been a boyscout, huh? Looks almost perfect to me. Personally I wouldn't underline the FAF. Just print the text "FAF" in an prominent way -> either BOLD or BOLD INVERTED. Underlining should serve the only purpose of defining an altitude restriction. Just my five cents though .. Oskar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG_Flyer Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Uhmm, never been a boyscout, huh? Well yes I was Oskar, but in fairness, I was one primarily so I could camp near the girl scouts. Looks almost perfect to me. Personally I wouldn't underline the FAF. Just print the text "FAF" in an prominent way -> either BOLD or BOLD INVERTED. Underlining should serve the only purpose of defining an altitude restriction. Just my five cents though .. Hey, keep up the good suggestions and we'll owe you a coffee. Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ontheair Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 How can I make the difference between a VOR/DME and a DME with the chart legend ? Example : near CYQT/Thunder Bay Thunder Bay VOR/DME : YQT/114.1 noted D (H) + coords Mickay Thunder Bay DME : UAU/112.5 noted D (H) + coords BTW what do D and (H) stand for ? (I should know that...) Merci d'avance Jean-Louis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aivlasoft Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 Jean-Louis, it's the symbol that makes the difference. Please see the picture below where the most left navaid (1CD 111.4) is a DME only, the middle one (YVR 115.9) is a VORDME whereas the most right (YPK 112.4) is a VOR without DME. D means that a DME is available H means 'high altitude' L means 'low altitude' Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG_Flyer Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Urs, So you found a real navaid with a numeral ID, not one that was mislabled - nice. Too bad DMEs don't play their tunes in FSX.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ontheair Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 crystal clear !! Merci beaucoup Jean-Louis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts