Noe wrote:
So fairly different things and hard to compare.
Indeed. They both have their purpose and are not in competition. While there perhaps have been personal issues in the past, these should not be relevant to participants on EuroGA or members of PPL/IR.
I perceive PPL/IR as a structured organisation (does lobbying, organises seminars) that ALSO runs a forum, while this is a forum that doesn’t do these “organisation” stuff.
So fairly different things and hard to compare.
I was a member for 10 years…
I would support the idea that you get the membership for free after all the time you are investing here to teach the uneducated.
Thankfully EuroGA doesn’t charge ~£75/year to people who want to educate themselves
The business of leaving out waypoints from GPS databases has been going on for many years. It started with the KLN90B about 10 years ago. I vaguely recall the KLN94 had a similar issue and they dealt with it either by leaving out some stuff or by reducing the coverage region. These are claimed to be due to memory size limits but probably aren’t since the entire KLN94 database is about 3MB and the flash cartridge is 48MB.
That’s a known limitation of the 430/430W in addressing space (bit length of the waypoint database index) which means that Garmin can no longer put in all waypoints. Was discussed in length on the PPLIR forum at the example of
Leipzig. Seems to be particularly problematic in Germany as they increasingly use these intermediate waypoints instead of vectors.
He has the latest database, I checked, but he got a DCT to a point in the RNP Approach that was not in the list of his 430W,
Alexis wrote:
friend just called me and told me that he was cleared for the RNP Approach to Bremen (EDDW) and that the waypoints in his 430W database did not match that approach. The first one that was the same was the FAP … but the ones befor had different names.How is that possible? Does that have to do with “RNP” at all?
Correction: We talked again and he said that some WPs were missing, notthat the existing ones had different designators.
I flew it two weeks ago and it was fine. When did he last update his database?
A friend just called me and told me that he was cleared for the RNP Approach to Bremen (EDDW) and that the waypoints in his 430W database did not match that approach. The first one that was the same was the FAP … but the ones befor had different names.
How is that possible? Does that have to do with “RNP” at all?
Correction: We talked again and he said that some WPs were missing, notthat the existing ones had different designators.
As such I pull back my previous comment as DFS is correct to call it RNP RWY 32 aligned with the future ICAO PBN requirement