AI Planes departing from 31 don`t fly the STAR

Sebastian · Post by **Sebastian** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:37 am

With your AFCAD the AI planes simply depart from 31 and fly straight ahead over the mountains. The real procedure should be an inverted IGS approach. The 9dragons AFCAD was capable, as I remember.

Post by **martin[flytampa]** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:03 am

I'll let Jim Vile answer this one as he wrote both sceneries' AI procedures.

Krizzzzz · Post by **Krizzzzz** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:29 am

Ive simply modified the AFCAD file and closed runway 31 as it is boring anyway

Sebastian · Post by **Sebastian** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:02 am

In another thread it was said that 31 cannot be closed in the Fly Tampa AFCAD. Or do you use the 9dragons-AFCAD? Anyway, this also is discussed somewhere else here and to make it short, it doesn`t work either.

If you really altered the original Fly Tampa file, would you be so kind and tell me what to do? Or could you send me the file in a mail?

I am not interested in 31 approaches and any weather situation that makes the checkerboard-approach more challenging is welcome

jvile · Post by **jvile** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:19 pm

With your AFCAD the AI planes simply depart from 31 and fly straight ahead over the mountains. The real procedure should be an inverted IGS approach. The 9dragons AFCAD was capable, as I remember.

No ones Kai Tak (9Dragons) is capable of controlling the departure route as per the FS9/FSX code.

Turns on departure are based solely on the great circle FP route and nothing else. The only departure turn that can be rewritten is a missed approach turn left or right.

I should have the missed approach turn for runway 31 turning left. Runway 13 missed approach I have set to turning right.

In another thread it was said that 31 cannot be closed in the Fly Tampa AFCAD.

In other post here I have said that RWY 31 cannot be close for good. It can be closed if you do not set extreme weather conditions (visibility and winds).

Sebastian · Post by **Sebastian** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:02 am

jvile wrote:
In another thread it was said that 31 cannot be closed in the Fly Tampa AFCAD.
In other post here I have said that RWY 31 cannot be close for good. It can be closed if you do not set extreme weather conditions (visibility and winds).

I always fly with Active Sky and the last damn two days the weather was very poor in Hong Kong with severe thunderstorms and 31 active all the time...

I strongly suggest to copy the 9dragons idea and to provide two AFCADS, one for dynamic runway selection and one with 31 closed for all people (like me) who bought a scenery of a closed airport just for one single approach. Technically, this is possible.

paavo · Post by **paavo** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:07 pm

Sebastian wrote:
jvile wrote:
In another thread it was said that 31 cannot be closed in the Fly Tampa AFCAD.
In other post here I have said that RWY 31 cannot be close for good. It can be closed if you do not set extreme weather conditions (visibility and winds).
I always fly with Active Sky and the last damn two days the weather was very poor in Hong Kong with severe thunderstorms and 31 active all the time...

I strongly suggest to copy the 9dragons idea and to provide two AFCADS, one for dynamic runway selection and one with 31 closed for all people (like me) who bought a scenery of a closed airport just for one single approach. Technically, this is possible.

So you plan to take off and land with a tail wind ?

I would think setting the wind so 13 is active is the easiest way,

Sebastian · Post by **Sebastian** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:22 pm

Yes, why not? In reality, there are a couple of airports where certain runways with tailwinds up to 5 knots are prefered. One of these is RWY 5 in Madeira for example.

paavo · Post by **paavo** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:25 pm

Sebastian wrote:Yes, why not? In reality, there are a couple of airports where certain runways with tailwinds up to 5 knots are prefered. One of these is RWY 5 in Madeira for example.

Fair enough, just curious is all.

jvile · Post by **jvile** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:29 pm

Sebastian

May I suggest that you open your AF2_vhhx.bgl with the AFCAD2 program (FS9) and make several changes.

1. Place checkmarks in the runway property to close RWY 31 (this is all that 9Dragons did as per Clutch Cargo)
2. Remove the Start Location from RWY 31
3. Delete the ILS (Loc, GS, DME) from RWY 31 (does not really matter)

Note:

A closed runway end in FS must always be the Secondary Runway and not the Primary Runway End. I have set the runway base /recip to the correct values so the probability can be a lower score if the User so desires to close RWY 31.

Technically speaking (the above steps) this will lower the probability of ATC selecting RWY 31 to a lower value then what 9Dragons gave you.

If winds sustain greater then 60 kts at heading 318 +- 90 degrees only then will ATC reopen RWY 31.

snip...
one for dynamic runway selection and one with 31 closed for all people (like me) who bought a scenery of a closed airport just for one single approach.

If you study both 9Dragons and FlyTampa's Kai Tak you will see there are many more then just a single approach in those scenery's. There are ILS's, a LDA (IGS), a VORDME, GPS, Visual and NDB approaches including additional Transitions for each so I don't know why you think just a single approach exist if RWY 31 is closed. Closing a runway has nothing to do with how many approaches are in a database. ATC works with approach code (pecking order based on the weather engine) and then with a runway in that order.

I always fly with Active Sky

Weather Engines are not all the same. Most 3rd party weather engines are working to give you more realistic cloud draw /coverage and have never addressed the surface winds that the ATC engine uses as per the default FS weather engine.

You are using Active Sky, someone else is using FSmeteo and someone else is using the default FS weather engine. That means the surface winds that the Control Tower code works with for runway selection can cause each user to have a different runway end open on any given day.

There is no such thing as closing a runway end in FS9/FSX completely but only lowering the probability of its use to a zero value as per XML (in most cases). If we could close a runway completely then it would be possible to close an entire airport based on runways only. That will never happen.

ATC is not going to leave any plane on a IFR flightplan with no runway to land on at its destination. ATC will always fall back on a .dll set of files (no XML entry's) and tell that IFR FlightPlan Plane to land regardless of what a User /Scenery Designer has closed.

The user objective is to lower the probability of a runway end but you would have to rewrite the FS .dll files if you want RWY 31 closed as a hard code. I will not tamper with MS protected .dll files and upload to a web site for others to use.

Technically, this is possible

You are correct if you hard code the closeure of RWY 31 with your own FS9 .dll files but that still does not override the MS EULA statement because they still own the software.

Sebastian · Post by **Sebastian** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:05 pm

jvile wrote:
snip...
one for dynamic runway selection and one with 31 closed for all people (like me) who bought a scenery of a closed airport just for one single approach.
If you study both 9Dragons and FlyTampa's Kai Tak you will see there are many more then just a single approach in those scenery's. There are ILS's, a LDA (IGS), a VORDME, GPS, Visual and NDB approaches including additional Transitions for each so I don't know why you think just a single approach exist if RWY 31 is closed. Closing a runway has nothing to do with how many approaches are in a database. ATC works with approach code (pecking order based on the weather engine) and then with a runway in that order.

Thank you for your detailed answer, you told me everything I need to know. Concerning the "single approach", there is nothing to discuss about. I simply meant the checkerboard-approach in general. Noone buys this scenery of a closed airport with the great ambition to fly an ordinary ILS approach on RWY 31. That`s all I wanted to say. Many people would prefer a checkerboard approach even with a tailwind of 5 - 10 knots.

jvile wrote:
Technically, this is possible
You are correct if you hard code the closeure of RWY 31 with your own FS9 .dll files but that still does not override the MS EULA statement because they still own the software.

Your solution is practical and reasonable. No further need to edit those hard coded files. Of course, a tail wind component of 60 knots is not an option, so it is perfect on my opinion to have RWY 31 as a backup, then.