How did you do that?
I have a contact in there.
I had a phone call with Eurocontrol, they told me that this version of the BADA data base holds the manufacturers data from the least performant variant of the type. Which is a bad move for all types with turbo and normal aspirated variants on the same type designator.
It is completely useless if they are validating flight plans on it...
I don't think the performance tables matter much (ATC juse work tactically the whole time, usually ignoring airway routes etc so long as you remain in CAS) but the ceiling clearly needs to be the highest for the ICAO code.
Surely they have more important things to spend their money on?
You need to visit their HQ in Brussels and see their access control system which counts the number of feet on the mat 
not very impressive -. no Cirrus SR22 (maybe because only 5000 built)
The Piper Dakota is not there, but browsing some of the types I know gives the impression that all figures generally are exagerated.
What is the ICAO code for the SR22?
SR22 ;-)
I see the EU taxpayer money is being appropriately directed at the most pressing economic issues
What the hell is this "database" used for then?
Actually there is some slightly amusing stuff going on over there. A while ago I was sent a document prepared by EASA which was a research study on GA. It was interesting because it was done by somebody with a brain (amybe even with a PPL) and it appeared to be relatively accurate. I can't post it because the source reckons it never left the organisation, but it shows that they spend money on all kinds of little bits of research like this. Maybe they have even got a database on the character profiles of pilots, indexed by aircraft type...
browsing some of the types I know gives the impression that all figures generally are exagerated.
The TB20 climb perf is not achievable other than through a total disregard for engine management (CHTs) - which is probably what most people did before stuff like the EDM700, and John Deakin, came along... The Lyco max CHT is 500F which everybody today agrees is outrageous.
It is completely useless if they are validating flight plans on it...
The workaround is to use ZZZZ as type and then TYP/TR IN or something the validator doesn't understand...
I think they introduced this performance data into the flight plan validation about 6-9 months ago. That is when I first saw complaints from turbocharged operators that their flight plans where being rejected (which also includes my TN BE36 !).
Eurocontrol has an aspiration to 4D flight paths based on the flight plan data. (Bookworm will have much more information).
Today, they seem to use the data in a broad brush way to check the speed and flight are not 'unreasonable'. However, they also use the performance data to determine if you will be able to make a climb or descent in time to comply with a restriction. For example if travelling along L607 at FL100 towards RUDUS, you will get caught by the Frankfurt RADs, If you put L607 UBIDO/N0175F140 L607 RUDUS, then CFMU will check your aircraft has the performance to achieve that climb over the relatively short distance if yes, OK, if no, then you get a Flight along RUDUS L984 ASKIS not allowed below FL140. If you do the climb at EMGOD you definitely make the restriction and it validates fine.
CJ2 and CJ3 are missing too.
There is data for a CJ1.
Interestingly the approach speed says 220kts IAS, although the CJ1 has a gear limit of 186kts and a flaps 15 limit of 200kts. Perhaps this is just a guide for controllers during the descent, not the approach, or maybe when averaged out over the whole descent and then the approach it works out right for time planning purposes.
All Commanders 112 - 114 - normal & turbo all go by AC11
Aparently they climb with 700ft per minute and have an approach speed of 150kts. Max ceiling is FL160
I seriously doubt wether the 112 can actually make this while my 114TC will outperform this .. including the ceiling (FL250) .. @Peter .. how did you resolve that?.
