16L LOC needs adjusting

[NZ255]

Hi George,
Hate to fault an otherwise amazing product!
The 16L LOC is not runway centre. Looks like it should be 167.820007.
I think it was 168 degrees, amazing that 0.2 of a degree can put you so far off centre!

Cheers,

Nick

[middiu]

there are many fixes online, this is an example:
http://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/ ... x-scenery/

If we apply this fix, does it affect of goes in conflict with FT Sydney scenery? Or we should just wait for a fix from FT team?

Cheers
Emilio

[Nzeddy]

It's best to wait for an official FlyTampa fix.

[george[flytampa]]

I'll look at it later today.

[middiu]

any news on this?
I cannot land on 16L .... any quick fix we can apply without waiting for an official update?

Thanks for you help guys

[yakyak]

Great scenery George but I'm not sure where the OP got 167.82 or 168 degrees from. Looking at the approach and departure plates for YSSY, the LOC heading for RWY16L is 155 degrees.

Unfortunately your fix does not work.

Nick

[george[flytampa]]

New file. Actually tested it this time

155 + 13E MAG VAR = 168; is how the OP gets those numbers

167.8 is what I've set the new LOC to. Seems good enough for my cessna.

Let me know if its good your end guys.

[mcbellette]

Will fixes like this (and others) be included in a comprehensive update?

[yakyak]

Thanks for the reminder about the Mag Var...my bad

The new file works a treat. Really appreciate your quick turnaround.

Nick

[george[flytampa]]

Will fixes like this (and others) be included in a comprehensive update?

In a few weeks sure.

[Dave_YVR]

any news on this?
I cannot land on 16L .... any quick fix we can apply without waiting for an official update?

Thanks for you help guys

It's not that you "can't" land on 16L the way it was. Either way, thanks for the update George.

[Dicko]

New file. Actually tested it this time

155 + 13E MAG VAR = 168; is how the OP gets those numbers

167.8 is what I've set the new LOC to. Seems good enough for my cessna.

Let me know if its good your end guys.

So where does this file need to go?
Thanks
Andrew

[Dicko]

New file. Actually tested it this time

155 + 13E MAG VAR = 168; is how the OP gets those numbers

167.8 is what I've set the new LOC to. Seems good enough for my cessna.

Let me know if its good your end guys.

So where does this file need to go?
Thanks
Andrew

Ok I found it!

[G-CIVA]

Indeed a number of the LOCALISER beams are not aligned correctly in what is otherwise a work of art from Fly!Tampa

It is a misconception within both the payware & freeware FS AFCAD creation community that the LOC bearing or heading must match the current magnetic bearing.

The bearing or heading should always match the heading of the runway the LOCALISER is paired to in the AFCAD, regardless of the current real world magnetic bearing.

Magnetic bearings change - they are referenced to the Magnetic North Pole which changes position - thus magnetic bearings change - this is called Magnetic Variation.

The physical alignment of the runway & LOCALISER Beams on the ground (in our case within the FS environment) NEVER CHANGES.

The conundrum is complicated further when scenery is slightly misaligned with the AFCAD below it ... in this case it is wise perhaps to align the LOCALISER Beam with the scenery for best results (we are normally talking about a couple of feet inside FS).

The same issue is present for the GLIDEPATH beam ... most of these are harmonised with the PAPI & if either are not correctly placed they will give an FS pilot an incorrect impression of their position on final approach.

A simple check of google earth can show you if the Dev has done their homework (many don't) & sometimes if they have used a bgl file external to the AFCAD there is little that can be done to adjust the position of the PAPI. If they have kept things simple & used the PAPI lighting present inside the AFCAD the process for moving them is very easy.

The GLIDEPATH part of the ILS can then be positioned to give the FS pilot the correct 2 white/2 red all the way to touch down.

Of course if the GLIDEPATH & PAPI are not coincident - normally mentioned on the charts then this can be correctly modelled to.

The last piece of the puzzle is the DME antennae .... this needs to be positioned correctly so it gives the correct DME in relation to height to touchdown. Some DME are located at the far end of the RWY with the LOCALISER, some near the GLIDEPATH & PAPI & some are right on the threshold - even if it is displaced. The location of this piece of the ILS trifecta is also easy once you know how.

Finally there are the approach lights & runway lights ... also easy create once you know how.

After all, we are flying into these places mostly in tubeliners on instruments are we not expecting to 'be on the numbers'?

I must admit to a level of frustration at paying for products only to find that I have to fix all of these issues

I would like to point out though that in this Fly Tampa are not alone - ALL developers are at fault.

If you want to try my modified AFCAD lmk.

Best