Question about TACANs and VORTACs tables in AIP

[Fox_15]

@Micro_440th About TACANs and VORTACs table in AIP… I’m a bit confused and I’d be grateful if you could shed some light on this.

I have always thought that the TACANs tables (1.2.1 in AIP) list beacons from airbases and VORTACs tables (1.2.2 in AIP) list beacons from stations not colocated with airbases.
This seems to be true by the following airbases, all of which are listed in TACANs and not in VORTACs (and in parentheses type of installation present in Recon view):

• Gunsan (VORTAC)
• Daegu (VORTAC)
• Gwangju (VORTAC)
• Sacheon (VORDME)

But…Muan does not follow suit because although it has colocated VORDME installation, it is not present in TACANs table, as previous examples, but in VORTACs. I thought this might be because it used to be a standalone VORTAC installation, that’s why I proposed to remove it from VORTACs and add to TACANs as the rest of beacons colocated with airbases.
At the same time you said that Muan’s presence in VORTACs table is OK…

So I guess my question is what, in principle, should appear in TACANs table and what should appear in VORTACs table in AIP.

When doing more research I stumbled upon Incheon - it is a special case in that it seems to have two VORDME stations - 85X due north, visible on map as a separate nav beacon but listed as Incheon’s TCN channel in AIP’s airbases and also present in VORTACs table, and 76X due south, on map colocated with Incheon Intl Airport and listed in AIP’s TACANs table.

[Micro_440th]

@Fox_15

It is pretty simple.
Muan has its own VORTAC (65X) for the airport in 4.36 (a VOR/DME in 3d). In 4.35 there was only a VORTAC but no airport (also 65X, but different location and 3d model). Muan VORTAC wasnt deleted in the map. Because of that you see the symbol.
But why you see a VOR/DME in 3d but its in the VORTAC table?
We only have VORTAC and TACAN in BMS DB functionwise, no VOR/DME. So it will stay in the VORTAC table for now.
Maybe I will make an update in AIP and split VORTAC|VOR/DME in the future. But codewise it will stay a VORTAC.

For Incheon, you are correct.
Incheon has one VOR/DME (85X) for runway 15/33LR and one for 16/34 VOR/DME (76X). Runway 16/34 is not in BMS DB so we only use 85X.

I hope this clarify your question.

Cheers
Micro

[Fox_15]

@Micro_440th Thanks for the answer

“Maybe I will make an update in AIP and split VORTAC|VOR/DME in the future. But codewise it will stay a VORTAC.”

I understand that in BMS TACAN, VORTAC and VORDME are functionally equal and it was not my itent to suggest splitting VORTACs table further. I just would like to discuss some inconsistency with TACANs and VORTACs tables, please read on…

“Muan VORTAC wasnt deleted in the map. Because of that you see the symbol.”

No, Muan VORTAC is no longer in the map:

Yet, currently Muan appears in both AIP’s TACANs table in VORTACs tables.

That’s the inconsistency I’d like to figure out. Shouldn’t it be removed from VORTACs table and left only in TACANs table, like other similar cases, for instance Gunsan or Daegu?

[Micro_440th]

@Fox_15 I will check again. Thanks for reporting and the good analysis.