Navigraph airac cycle 0710

After one month interuption, the new PM airac cycle on the Navigraph website is again available.
I did for test 3 flights - EBOS / EGLL etc return , EBOS EGKK and return and EBOS EDDF

- no problems to set SID and STAR
- no problems to change waypoints during flts
- no problems to change STAR during preflight.
- no problems to go direct to a certain waypoint further in the route.

Did not yet test a STAR change in flight.

Preflight dash line is blue, once activated it become white and EXEC magenta.

Looks very promising . Did test with latest builds on the PM website

B. rgds
Michel

Sounds good!

Nice news. Will test ASAP.

Ok, what's the real story?

Reported in this thread that AIRAC 0710 does work with PM.

Reported here http://www.mycockpit.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10345 that is does not.

Who really knows what, if anything, is happening with PM and Navigraph?

Tim.... If you only have the PM RJ GC with no FMC, or MCP.. Navdata won't do anything for you anyway will it?

Best regards,

Trev

Hi Trevor,

Yes, PMRJ does have a nav display that shows airport, VOR, NDB, and other fix data.

Navigraph reports that AIRAC 0710 is compatible with: Project Magenta - Airbus/Boeing/RJ-Type Glass Cockpit, GA IFR Panel.

Is it a fact that PM software still cannot use the new data? I am reading conflicting reports that it does. Does anyone know for sure?

Send an email to Support@projectmagenta.com and ask them. See what they say. Or download the new cycle and try it.. :) Only 2 ways to find out LOL

Thanks,

Trev

Well, one, there is a charge for Navigraph downloads, and two, I don't believe I would get a meaningful answer from PM.

I'll just have to wait like others to see if the PM issue get's resolved one day.

Regards

Hi Tim,
I just likedto inform the forum users what the results were of my mentioned testflights.
I haven't test anything more at this moment than what I said.
I just noted that after an interruption of 1 month, (due to a faulty converter - according Stefan) the files are back on the Navigraph download site and I tried them out.
I don't know what has been changed, I just noted that the mentioned problems were gone on this trajects for me.

Looks interesting if others are checking this.

B. Rgds
Michel

Had made some flights with this latest NAVIGRAPH and all is working normaly until now.....:p

Hello Michel,

could you pls tell the exactly way you enter the data into the FMC?
I tried today EDDM - EDDH and got a problem with the star again!
When I change the star during preflight, it clears all the waypoint after the first entry on the second page (RTE) example:

[RTE page]
EDDM - EDDH
then execute
[DEP/APP page]
26R
MIQ7N
then execute
[RTE page]
Y102.ALIBU
UL604.MASEK --> second page on RTE page
UN851.KEMAD
UL190.NOLGO
then execute
[DEP/APP page]
23
NOLGO1A
then execute

when I now change the RWY/STAR it will clears all the waypoints after MASEK

Can someone confirm this, pls? Otherwise I enter maybee the data on a wrong way?

Thanks
Jan

OK! I found out:

- when entering the waypoint on the LEGS page FIX by FIX manualy no problmes with STAR´s (changing)

but when using the Airway.FIX feature on the RTE page, a problem is always with the waypoints on the second page (2/2) when changing a STAR.

The problem with the hdg (turning 180 degrees) before executing still excist.

If someone confirm this, I will report it to PM.

Thanks
Jan

Well I'm in Luxembourg now so I can't check that route, but I see you are executing after every step. This you normally don't have to do.
Complete the route completely without excuting, then activate the route - eventually checking it via plan mode, and then execute it.
B. Rgds
Michel

I did it exactly as Jan described.
Same happens to me ...it clears all waypoints after MASEK.
I tried it with different routes, it´s always the same:
it clears all the waypoints after the first entry on the second page (RTE)
when you select a STAR.
Regards
Ralf

The correct way to enter the route is to enter the start Location and then the destination in the RTE page (no need to execute yet).

Then go to DEPP/ARR and click in DEPP, which will give you a list of SID's, choose the one you want, then choose DEPP/ARR again and choose ARR, which will give you a choice of STAR's, choose the one you want (still no need to execute yet)

Then go back to RTE and fill in all the way points and remove any Discontinued notifications with the DELETE command, only when you are happy with the route, then Activate and Excecute.

At this point the journey can be viewed in the LEGS page, providing the CTR switch is on PLN, using the STEP button.

If items dissapear from the route at any time then re-input them in the RTE page, then ACTIVATE and EXECUTE again.

Daveanne

Thanks,

have you tried with the PM CDU ?
When I do it like you discribe, I get not the RTE legs between DEP and APP ...
My way of entering the data is not the real one but the best for PM CDU.
Pls tell me if you have success with your way in PM software.

Best regards
Jan

Jan, sorry I am not using PM, so my method is going to be different to yours.

However, being PM they should have programmed the software to act like a real one, thats the whole point of PM is to realisticaly mimic a real 737/747 or whatever you are flying?

The method I gave was taught me by a 737 800 1st officer.....?

Daveanne

OK thanks,

that clears everything. The PM CDU is a bit away from the real one.
I hope we will get the annunced "major updates" soon:

Quote:

---

19/08/07 Software Updates After several weeks of no updates (vacation, several trips) an new cycle of re-compiled newer builds has been uploaded to www.projectmagenta.com/latest.html
We will also be looking at the navdata cycle issues.

Several major updates will be released in the next couple of weeks.

---

Best regards
Jan

Hello Jan and Daveanne,

I'm using PM CDU a long time ago and I don't agree with the procedure discribed by Daveanne to introduce the route on a CDU.
The really introducing of a route in the CDU is :
ICAO Code Airport Dep and ICAO Code Airport Arrival : that's OK
Then you introduce all the route in the CDU (left side the airways and right side the waypoints).
When you receive your clearance IFR then you introduce the active rwy and the SID.
For the arrival, the same method to introduce, first of all, the active rwy and then the STAR.
I've flown a lot of hours in a real B737 cockpit (not as a pilot but well as a privileged passager :p) and this procedure was always followed by the Captain and his first officer !!

Hope that'll help you.

PS : It remains always a problem to introduce correctly the arrival and his STAR (I've the same problem as Ralf : "it clears all the waypoints after the first entry on the second page (RTE) when you select a STAR" but NOT always !!) Very strange.

Marco

Marco I agree, An aircraft could be in the middle of a pushback and the wind changes thus the clearance. So changing the SID/Star after the route is exec should not be a problem. A STAR for the expected landing runway based on the ATIS at departure for the destination would normally be entered to help with fuel and weight predictions. Only when the crew knows the exact landing runway would they enter the actual STAR or setup the extended centerline etc if on vectors.

I have the CDU/MCP end of my setup offline as Im concentrating on the MIP hardware at the moment, is this a Boeing only issue or are the Airbus and other types having problems.

Regards

James

I agree with all of you, James, Marco.

But in FS you already know where you are going to take off from and land at, on most flights its very rare that the landing runway and takeoff runway change on you mid flight.

Yes all you chaps running in-flight weather updates on the internet etc will argue that, but I cant simulate that at present.

If the DEPP and ARR runways are put into the situation and Clearance delivery changes then mearly replace the DEPP/ARR with the correct ones and "update/activate", the basis of this dicussion was that PM doesn't mimic the real ones when entering the flight details?

Bets of luck with it all and happy landings

Daveanne

Gentlemen,
One remark - about your previous entries about ways to enter route - in very shorts words. The CDU is there to HELP AND ASSIST the pilot. All possibilities to enter route - change SIDS/STARS - WAYPOINT , fixes etc are available. I only can talk for the B744, but it is common practice these days to enter the complete route inclusive SID and STAR during preflight.
Of course afterwards it is perfectly possible to change the SID, the t/o rwy, the STAR or the landing rwy afterwards during the entire flight. Also add or delete waypoints, change routes portions etc.
This is the reality.
B. Rgds
Michel

I did some other testflight these days and I must confirm that also the AIRAC 0710 isn't bug free.
I did the test with following routes
EBOS/GMMN (Ostend to Casablanca)
Routing EBOS MAK L607 GOLEX Y50 CIV UN872 KOVIN UY317 RESMI UN857 BEBIX UM129 LMG UN857 PPN UN10 VASUM UN857 HIJ UN10 SVL UN857 ABODA UR72 LAKAM
SID MAK2S STAR LKM2A

Bugs :

- received RUNTIME ERROR 9 / subcript out of range when entering UN857 after SVL (KORNO waypoint)

- when entering STAR (during preflight) the entire route - except first LEGSPAGE was gone.

At the other hand, this isn't the case for shorter routes as, EBOS to EGLL or EGKK. (Maybe these longterm problems has somethign to to with the length or complixity of the route?)

The same situation (lost of route points except 1st page) with the return legg. GMMN/EBOS. For test reasons I entered the EBOS STAR (FERD2A) only during the descend briefing. The result was the same. The aircraft even returned again to the beginning, as long I didn't correct the route.

Routing : GMMN/EBOS AGDAL G5 TOLSI UG5 KORIS UL27 VJF UN10 HIJ UW130TLD UN858 VADOM UN874 VEKIN UN873 FERDI

SID GMMN AGL1D - STAR EBOS FERD2A

What certainly seems to be fixed is inserting waypoints or go dct to a certain waypoint during flight. This item is now working ok.

I also informed PM -support again, about my latest test flights with the hope this longterm item will be fixed onces.

B. Rgds
Michel

Just received message from PM-support that a new CDU build is in progress and most of the know issues should be fixed with it.
We looking forwards to its release ;)
Many greetings
Michel

Hello Michel,

Great news indeed. And many thanks for your precisions concerning the using of the CDU.

En een goede dag komende van the streek van Marche-en-Famenne. :)

Marc

Thanks Michel,

I allready sended an email to enrico but get no reply since 2 days ;-(
Nice to hear that there is something in progress.

Best regards
Jan

Hi here,

My problem with airac 0710 and 0711 is that i fill the flight plan and when i execute i get extra waypoints at the legs page. A normal plan of 300nm goes to 4000 or 5000nm. I have to delete all the extra wrong legs in order to get a normal flight. This is happening in most of the cases.

Hi

Some have expressed concern about the length of time it is taking to get the updates promissed on the news pages.

Whilst I'm here in the forum, I will try and outline what is happening.

The B-CDU has been actively worked on for the past few weeks. It is still being worked on and has taken longer than expected. The main issues we think are fixed, but one issue which came up as a side effect has proved a little more difficult to resolve.

When it is released we hope it will fix:

SID / STAR - causing route lines to disappear after changes or planning routes
LNAV tracking when entering a new waypoint in flight
Improved (hopefully resolved) any strange line drawing due to errors of altitudes and PERF settings and closing of continuties etc

So far, the tests of the new build appear to be good, but it can't be released until the final issue is resolved.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson

Thanks for the update - really looking forward to the release.

Regards,

Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for bringing us up to date. It is indeed a very long time we have seen updates, but when this major issues will be solved, it will be worth it.
See you
Michel

Thanks for information Jonathan.
Continuous informations have comforting effects ;-)
Greetings
Norbert

vnav descent speed?

cdu not correctly adjusting speeds and alts on legs page?

any help with these ones?

matto, i hope you are not too shocked at the direction these questions are going in. its only normal humans conversing. you gunna be ok ?

Telly,

I notice you were directing your questions directly to Jonathan. Please be aware that Project Magenta (Johnathan) does not come in here and respond or answer your questions on a regular basis. Perhaps you should send an email Directly to support@projectmagenta.com This is the point that Matt and the rest of our team have been trying to get across to the users of this forum.

If you have questions for Project Magenta you must email them. These forums are to discuss configuration issues and share Knowledge on setup and operation. If you have an issue with something that you feel is a bug, there is no point sharing it here, unless you know most people are not experiencing the issue, and your looking for help on correcting the matter.

I hope that you find this information helpful.

Best regards,

MyCockpit Admin.

Hi Trev,

It is my personal opinion, but I think reporting bugs to community could be very useful.
Sometimes it's difficult to know if it is system related or just plain bugs in the software.

All software has bugs and incorrect behaviors, even the big ones as Microsoft are issueing monthly updates and patches, so I don't see any good reason why we should try to hide the ones from PM for the community world. Communication and openness is very important in the world and presently it looks the My Cockpit team (or PM) is trying to limit this severly. It is useless to try to give the impression here PM is 100% super quality, when every body knows it's not. With the support of its customers it only can become stronger and better. Teamwork always makes things better ;)

The lack of communication is just feeding more and more issues and threads.

This gives me a very bad feeling. Censorship is the last thing we need here.

Michel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michelmvd

Hi Trev,

It is my personal opinion, but I think reporting bugs to community could be very useful.
Sometimes it's difficult to know if it is system related or just plain bugs in the software.

All software has bugs and incorrect behaviors, even the big ones as Microsoft are issueing monthly updates and patches, so I don't see any good reason why we should try to hide the ones from PM for the community world. Communication and openness is very important in the world and presently it looks the My Cockpit team (or PM) is trying to limit this severly. It is useless to try to give the impression here PM is 100% super quality, when every body knows it's not. With the support of its customers it only can become stronger and better. Teamwork always makes things better ;)

The lack of communication is just feeding more and more issues and threads.

This gives me a very bad feeling. Censorship is the last thing we need here.

Michel

---

I see your point, but please don't misunderstand what I said above as a hard line between black and white. Please see below for a fictitious example.

Example #1.
good
Hi guys I am having a problem with the legs page. Have any of you the same issues? and does anyone know if it is being looked at?

bad
Hey I have had nothing but problems with the legs page and some no good peice of junk software is to blame for that peice of crums that I spent too much money on.


Can you see the difference..?

It is the latter that we are trying to avoid. and that is all that I meant.
LMAO Therefore If the latter is used, and it is censorship that it is called when we remove this type of post, then so be it. However, If I ever caught my daughter speaking like that in an open chat forum, she would loose her internet privileges indefinitely.

Just my thoughts. Bottom line is. if you have a customer service and support issue. Vent to PM in email. We will not tolerate it here.

Trev

I completely agree and I for one appreciate Trev's reasonable and moderate way of addressing this.

I personally vented my frustration to Jonathan yesterday and I sincerely regret it. I absolutely stand by the views I presented - but it was completely the wrong place to air those views in that manner .... and I emailed Trev and Matt to recognise and apologise for that.

As I said, it's not about standing down, it's not about promoting ignorance of the bugs and issues we have with PM, and I don't believe it's about censorship.

It is about appreciating this forum facility and community that is kindly provided for us here and realizing that comments like those I made yesterday are only going to cause issues and problems for the guys that provide this site for us.

Ok for those who think I'm just towing the line here - here are some solid facts;

If it were not for this site, I would not have been able to:-

- Set up a ethernet network.. (gave up twice after trying other internet 'advice'!).
- Configure my PM correctly.
- Fix my Saitek Yoke issues.
- In short, I simply couldn't have built my 'pit if were not for this site.

That calls for some appreciation! , not mis-using this place to vent frustration at a vendor (regardless of whether the frustration is justified).

The correct place for me (and others) to shout that I am unhappy about any aspect of PM and their products is at their 'shop front' (ie... by email), not here.

I don't think mycockpit.org is a heavily censored site, and I also don't think it's an extreme 'anything goes' site (remember those sites suffer terrible flaming, abuse, conflicts, etc)....

As the Buddhist's say - the middle path is the right path.

Hi Trev,
Of course I totally agree with you for what exemple 1 concerns.
It is important to let the community know about the bugs and problems, but it is even more important that this is done in a mature, fair and correct matter. By flaming, menacing or impolite words, you obtain nothing. I'm more than sure that the guys at PM do there best to have the software working, after all it's their business.
Reporting bugs or uncorrect behavior of software, should be seen as a help and support to bring the software in line with the real thing. This must be done first at all directly with the vendor and support services.

Nevertheless I understand the customers frustration when no response is giving or it takes so long (now already more than 10 month's) to have a patch for the well known CDU problems, which are making a normal flight impossible.

An open communication by all parties, in a spirit of collaboration and team support can do wonders. The updates Jonathan gave us the last weeks are certainly helping to let us understand better what is happening. I think a weekly condensed news update would be very much appreciated.

Michel

Very well said Michael.

The mature correct, and fair method is what everyone is looking to see. and as you said, Everyone of us is looking to have the software patched.

Thanks for understanding, I am confident that each and everyone of us will get our patches, we are just going to have to wait for it. LOL


Trev

Hi

There is no update to VNAV. The main issues looked at are the ones previously listed.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson