SID Missing Waypoint KCXO

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   Departing eastbound from Lone Star Airport (KCXO) near Houston yesterday, I was cleared via the MMALT TWO Departure (RNAV), GUSTI transition.  After loading that into the FPL on my IFD440, I noticed the first fix in the departure, MMALT, was omitted.  The magenta line on the MAP page showed the route was KCXO direct to MOOKI, which was the second fix of the SID.  
That missing fix MMALT is one the SID states to expect radar vectors to.  So while having no magenta line from KXCO to MMALT to start was no biggie, at some point after takeoff I expected I might be cleared to proceed direct MMALT.  Without the fix loaded in the IFD440 flight plan, I would be unable to comply.

I found I could not insert MMALT as an additional fix between KCXO and the SID. Once you load a fix different from what the box thinks is the SID, you can't expect the box to continue to act as though you were going to fly the SID anyway.  Can't have it both ways.  I didn't know whether the problem was with the logic of the IFD440, or an error in the Jeppesen database, or because by design navdata always omits vectored initial RNAV fixes, or some other reason.  But sitting on the ramp it did not matter - I just needed to make sure I could fly the fixes as depicted on the chart if so cleared.

To get around this, I loaded into GPS #2 the first few fixes of the SID one by one, starting with direct MMALT (which was in the database as a fix), so as to be ready to accept a "direct MMALT" clearance if need be after takeoff.

It turns out the missing MMALT fix was not needed for my flight -- after takeoff and a couple of heading changes, I was cleared direct to GUSTI, and used the IFD440 for primary navigation thereafter.  But I still wonder: what happened to MMALT?

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Catani Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 21 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 362	Post Options Post Reply Quote Catani Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: SID Missing Waypoint KCXO Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 12:55pm
	Departing eastbound from Lone Star Airport (KCXO) near Houston yesterday, I was cleared via the MMALT TWO Departure (RNAV), GUSTI transition. After loading that into the FPL on my IFD440, I noticed the first fix in the departure, MMALT, was omitted. The magenta line on the MAP page showed the route was KCXO direct to MOOKI, which was the second fix of the SID. That missing fix MMALT is one the SID states to expect radar vectors to. So while having no magenta line from KXCO to MMALT to start was no biggie, at some point after takeoff I expected I might be cleared to proceed direct MMALT. Without the fix loaded in the IFD440 flight plan, I would be unable to comply. I found I could not insert MMALT as an additional fix between KCXO and the SID. Once you load a fix different from what the box thinks is the SID, you can't expect the box to continue to act as though you were going to fly the SID anyway. Can't have it both ways. I didn't know whether the problem was with the logic of the IFD440, or an error in the Jeppesen database, or because by design navdata always omits vectored initial RNAV fixes, or some other reason. But sitting on the ramp it did not matter - I just needed to make sure I could fly the fixes as depicted on the chart if so cleared. To get around this, I loaded into GPS #2 the first few fixes of the SID one by one, starting with direct MMALT (which was in the database as a fix), so as to be ready to accept a "direct MMALT" clearance if need be after takeoff. It turns out the missing MMALT fix was not needed for my flight -- after takeoff and a couple of heading changes, I was cleared direct to GUSTI, and used the IFD440 for primary navigation thereafter. But I still wonder: what happened to MMALT?

M20J Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Newbie Joined: 15 Nov 2015 Location: CZBA Status: Offline Points: 32	Post Options Post Reply Quote M20J Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 1:31pm
	That sounds to me like a database error, you should notify Jeppesen.

Catani Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 21 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 362	Post Options Post Reply Quote Catani Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 2:41pm
	Yes, I have done that, in case it is a navdata error. If Jepp responds to my inquiry acknowledging a navdata error, I will post that resolution here. But then, it's been an error for awhile, since it is also appears in the MMALT One SID in the IFD simulator database. That seems rather unlikely, since I assume most pilots check their FMS against the charts before takeoff and would have had the error corrected by now. I posted my message here to see if someone might have another explanation, while waiting for Jepp to respond.

Catani Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 21 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 362	Post Options Post Reply Quote Catani Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 01 Jan 2017 at 11:54pm
	I believe my initial post is the result of my operational error. I recall I failed to load the takeoff runway in the IFD for the SID I used. In reviewing this takeoff in the SIM, I noticed the SIM displayed the same "error" my initial post in this thread described. Then I ran the SIM again, and this time supplied the missing runway information. Now, the SIM does include MMALT, and also includes initial heading and altitude information. I expect to confirm in my plane that the IFD behaves just as the SIM. That of course would mean there is nothing wrong with Jepp's navdata nor my IFD. I could find nothing in the PG that warns of the importance and necessity of loading a runway into a SID, and the potential adverse consequences of leaving it blank. I suggest that the IFD software should be designed so that no part of the SID is displayed on the MAP page or even on the FPL page until a runway is selected. Since the FPL and MAP pages display dramatically different information about the SID procedure depending upon whether the runway is identified, only one of which can be right, I believe steps should be taken to eliminate the possibility of following the wrong one. I for one proved that inadequately informed pilots might try to do just that. Better I think not to show anything at all about the SID in the FPL and MAP pages until all required info to make the SID display accurately has been supplied. Edited by Catani - 01 Jan 2017 at 11:55pm

brou0040 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720	Post Options Post Reply Quote brou0040 Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 02 Jan 2017 at 8:46am
	Hopefully your concern is addressed as part of the listed improvements for 10.2. 39. Improved enroute transitions - When inserting a SID into the flight plan, the system will generally present only a dropdown containing enroute transitions. When the user selects the transition, a SID is inserted with a runway transition corresponding to the selected runway. However, if there is no selected runway, then no runway transition is inserted. This has led to some users wondering why their SID is "missing legs". That has been addressed in 10.2.

Catani Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 21 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 362	Post Options Post Reply Quote Catani Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 02 Jan 2017 at 10:46am
	Good catch, I'd forgotten that item. It shows Avidyne is aware of the problem. But as I read it, the SID will still continue to display an incorrect SID without the runway loaded, placing the onus on pilots to carefully cross-check charts and catch the error. I think it better if the SID doesn't appear as part of the FPL until all required info is loaded to make the display accurate. As in a flight A direct B, with SID3 departure from A: it should continue to show as A direct B in the FPL, with the blank for "departure" indicating SID3, but no routing via the SID displayed from A to B until the "runway" box is also filled in. Just as if you supplied the runway info, but left the SID box blank. Leaving either box blank should give the same result IMHO: A direct B displayed in FPL and MAP both until all required SID info is loaded. An alternative way to do this would be to add a drop down box for runway selection after the SID is selected, just as is done for the selection of transitions. That would force pilots to complete the info required to display the SID accurately. Hopefully, Avidyne had all this in mind when it was writing item #39 that you pointed out. Edited by Catani - 02 Jan 2017 at 10:51am

DavidBunin Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742	Post Options Post Reply Quote DavidBunin Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 02 Jan 2017 at 12:06pm
	I think there is also a chance for a "sequence error". I think that you are supposed to put in the departure runway BEFORE you tell it the SID. As I recall, things can go wrong if you put in the SID first and then the runway, but I don't recall the details. David Bunin

Thinwing Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Newbie Joined: 23 Dec 2016 Location: Ksac Status: Offline Points: 11	Post Options Post Reply Quote Thinwing Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 26 Jan 2017 at 10:41am
	I had the same thing happen departing van nuys canoga depart....I failed to enter rw used and magenta line appeared direct to waypoint leaving out first depart procedures..a/p was in heading mode with nag in queue...a/p kicked out of heading mode and started to intercept magenta course.This resulted in a call from socal Stc why I was not on proper heading....I didn't realize the importance of filling in that little field for runway