曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

caused by storage capacity of RNAV avionics.
PATH/TERMINATOR LIMITATIONS
How a specific RNAV system deals with Path/Terminators
is of great importance to pilots operating with airborne
navigation databases. Some early RNAV systems may
ignore this field completely. The ILS/DME RWY 2
approach at Durango, Colorado, provides an example of
problems that may arise from the lack of Path/Terminator
capability in RNAV systems. Although approaches of this
type are authorized only for sufficiently equipped RNAV
systems, it is possible that a pilot may elect to fly the
approach with conventional navigation, and then reengage RNAV during a missed approach. If this missed
approach is flown using an RNAV system that does not
use Path/Terminator values, then the system will most
likely ignore the first two legs of the procedure. This will
cause the RNAV equipment to direct the pilot to make an
immediate turn toward the Durango VOR instead of flying the series of headings that terminate at specific altitudes as dictated by the approach procedure. [Figure
A-10] Pilots must be aware of their individual systems
Path/Terminator handling characteristics and always
review the manufacturer’s documentation to familiarize
themselves with the capabilities of the RNAV equipment
they are operating.
Pilots should be aware that some RNAV equipment was
designed without the fly-over capability that was discussed earlier in this appendix. This can cause
problems for pilots attempting to use this equipment to fly complex flight paths in the departure,
arrival, or approach environments.
CHARTING/DATABASE INCONSISTENCIES
It is important for pilots to remember that many inconsistencies may exist between aeronautical charts and
airborne navigation databases. Since there are so many
A-11
sources of information included in the production of
these materials, and the data is manipulated by several
different organizations before it eventually is displayed
on RNAV equipment, the possibility is high that there
will be noticeable differences between the charts and
the databases. However, only the inconsistencies that
may be built into the databases are addressed in this
discussion.
NAMING CONVENTIONS
As was discussed earlier in this appendix, obvious differences exist between the names of procedures shown
on charts and those that appear on the displays of many
Figure A-10. ILS/DME Runway 2 in Durango, Colorado.
A-12
RNAV systems. Most of these differences can be
accounted for simply by the way the avionics manufacturers elect to display the information to the pilot. It is
the avionics manufacturer that creates the interface
between the pilot and the database, so the ARINC 424
naming conventions do not really apply. For example,
the VOR 12R approach in San Jose, California, might
be displayed several different ways depending on how
the manufacturer designs the pilot interface. [Figure
A-11] Some systems display procedure names exactly
as they are charted, but many do not.
Although the three different names shown in Figure
A-11 identify the same approach, the navigation system manufacturer has manipulated them into different
formats to work within the framework of each specific
machine. Of course, the data provided to the manufacturer in ARINC 424 format designates the approach as
a 132-character data record that is not appropriate for
display, so the manufacturer must create its own naming conventions for each of its systems.
NAVAIDs are subject to naming discrepancies. This
problem is complicated by the fact that multiple
NAVAIDs can be designated with the same identifier.
VOR XYZ may occur several times in a provider’s
database, so the avionics manufacturer must design a
way to identify these fixes by a more specific means
than the three-letter identifier. Selection of geographic
region is used in most instances to narrow the pilot’s
selection of NAVAIDs with like identifiers.
Non-directional beacons (NDBs) and locator outer
markers (LOMs) can be displayed differently than they
are charted. When the first airborne navigation data-
bases were being implemented, NDBs were included in
the database as waypoints instead of NAVAIDs. This
necessitated the use of five character identifiers for
NDBs. Eventually, the NDBs were coded into the database as NAVAIDs, but many of the RNAV systems in
use today continue to use the five-character identifier.
These systems display the characters “NB” after the
charted NDB identifier. Therefore, NDB ABC would
be displayed as “ABCNB.”
Other systems refer to NDB NAVAIDs using either the
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Instrument Procedures Handbook (IPH)儀表程序手冊下(168)