I’ve checked the No Primary Landing, No Primary Takeoff, No Secondary Landing, and No Secondary Takeoff options for runway 17/35 at KXNA with 16/34 remaining open. ATC still directs me to 17/35 for takeoffs and landings. Is there anywhere else I need to change so MSFS recognizes the runway as closed and unavailable?
Closed per the NOTAM? I don’t think MSFS has NOTAMS. 17/35 is still in the current Airport Diagram.
We tried this in all combinations in the SDK to change it bit failed. So we assume it’s still the same situation. These parameters are ignored by the current models. It was discussed in the developer forum as well.
There are a lot of these cases. Zurich for example has runway 14 that is only used for landings. The reciprical runway 32 is never used for either takeoff or landing (there is not even any taxiways to the north end of the runway as you can see in the pic below). 14/32 is on the top right. 28 is used for takeoff and landing, but 10 is never used . The 16/34 runway is the only one used in both directions. And what do you do when ATC tells you to taxi to runway 14 for takeoff?
I think this an opportunity for Asobo to get community feedback and establish a community-accessible tool that tells MSFS not to use certain runways.
How would Zurich communicate this to Asobo to update MSFS? Zurich and many other high volume airports have assigned runways for many reasons such as efficient traffic flow or noise abatement. Hub airports that have overnight cargo processing facilities may have runways dedicated to express cargo aircraft. Some airports have control towers that are closed during evening hours. Keeping track of all these airport particulars would be challenging.
You mentioned about ATC assigning runway 14 for takeoff when runway 14 is for arrivals only… it is possible to select your departure runway at the World Map.
IRL if ATC assigned me to takeoff using rwy 14, I will use rwy 14. I’m not going to tell them “No. You can’t tell me to takeoff using rwy 14. I’m going to takeoff from a different runway.”
Even if it would be cool that the ATC would know such things, trough AFCAD as it was done in earlier versions, i guess the only way to really get the real world procedures it to use a realworld-like network with real ATC, such as VATSIM.
That’s kind of my point. When you plan your flight, you don’t know what runway will be in use when you actually get clearance. Setting the departure runway from the main menu is cheating.
As to your second point, it would be nice to have the option to tell ATC to reconsider their last command (to put it politely), such as when you are on final approach and ATC tells you to climb to FL230 - you you are in a Cessna 172. I’m not kidding - I got that message, among others. ATC will sometimes switch to Dumb and Dumber mode and all you can do is just switch it off.
Aren’t AFCAD files just static .bel files for airports? Who provides the information to create the update files? How does VATSIM acquire airport changes?
[quote=“Dreadnought06y, post:7, topic:397074”]
Setting the departure runway from the main menu is cheating.
Doesn’t ATIS broadcast the active runway(s) in use?
One of the biggest ATC deficiencies is the lack of “UNABLE”. The second deficiency is ATC inflexibility. ATC doesn’t understand “MAYDAY”. ATC assignments of goofy flight levels is clearly a bug but I think it is because ATC doesn’t have or understand the aircraft type and equipment when a flight plan is filed. It just assumes everyone is a B747.
I Agree but not everyone is confident in vatsim, there are other ATC software out their which you can choose to close runways, or do proper procedures. Vatsim is great but its not for everyone. Everyone is not as confident…it can be intimidating.
Yes, it’s closed per a NOTAM. I was trying to replicate that in the sim.
All of this information would be included in the AIRAC data that is updated every month around the world from the various controlling bodies. I think you all have seen us getting AIRAC updates?
I’d say likely there are features still not working in MSFS. Hopefully they get to supporting such things in the future.
I don’t think AIRAC contains NOTAMS, TFRs, Letters to Airmen, etc.
It would contain information like closed runways.
What the OP was looking for is when IRL an airport has local procedures such as specifying specific runways for only arrivals or on departures to be reflected somehow in MSFS. Maybe this can be configured by each user for their airport. Or maybe this could be obtained by MSFS automatically. Right now there isn’t any way for MSFS to include local airport procedures or temporary changes in its navigation database.
Perhaps you should read it again. Runway 17/35 is closed at his airport. Closed. Nothing special, closed just like the AIRAC would say. He’s checked the boxes as no primary or secondary takeoffs of landings, yet ATC keeps directing planes to the runway anyway.
Personally, I’d just remove the Runway if the closed checkboxes aren’t working. Not the way it should be, but it would work appropriately until they fix the code. Send your code to Asobo and report it.
Theres no way with the current system, as i understand it, that the ATC can know that.
Theres a runway defined in the scenery and taxiways to the runway, so the ATC thinks there IS a runway, and in fact, in the sim, it is. The AIRAC is only navigation data. The AIRAC can not magically change the airport scenery in the sim. Thats the problem here…
We even have the Nevada bush trip which has airfields permanently closed in real life and in game there’s even white x’s painted on the runways. Legally you can’t land there unless you have an emergency
Except that he’s just trying to close the runway. So, the runway shouldn’t show up in the airport definition anymore in the CIFP. But, I suppose you’re correct, they may get their airport definitions elsewhere.
But just to support it, in this example here from KACK… If they closed 15/33 those sections would disappear…
SUSAP KACKK6PR06 RW06 001 0000W06A0N4114527385W07004161240-002020300N4115557565W07002525635106750992000567F40035088472C9A085281610 SUSAP KACKK6PR06 RW06 002E +00085+00085LPV 81912 085291610 SUSAP KACKK6PR15 RW15 001 0000W15A0N4115288290W07003389550-001500300N4114257700W07002154600106751528000450F40050097128AA1085301111 SUSAP KACKK6PR15 RW15 002E +00137+00137LPV 97623 085311111 SUSAP KACKK6PR24 RW24 001 0000W24A0N4115330120W07003227300-001450300N4114299880W07004462755106750832000469F4003506BF30116085321610 SUSAP KACKK6PR24 RW24 002E +00142+00142LPV 93612 085331610 SUSAP KACKK6PR33 RW33 001 0000W33A0N4114573825W07002573060-001640300N4116004335W07004208250106751376000560F40050066DF0574085341406 SUSAP KACKK6PR33 RW33 002E +00123+00123LPV 77835 085351406
But, you’re correct in that Runway 12/30 doesn’t show up here, even though technically it can be used as a runway for small aircraft (it’s mostly used as a taxiway and is lit as such).
I completely understand what you want to get, and i definitely would appreciate that a simple NavData-Update would correct the closed/changed runways.
But as said, all this stuff is defined in the airport scenery itself and theres no way to change this with navdata. The whole scenery would be need to changed and recompiled. Atleast with the current system.
(and if i am not completely wrong on this)
It would be awesome when the ATC would been totally reworked and would depend on the AIRAC.
For example like these ATC AddOns that are out there who use Navdata. Then it wouldnt matter what is defined in the scenery. But as it is right now, and its the same as 20 years ago in FS9, this will not work.
I absolutely support this idea but it would need a complete ATC-Rework, AFAIK.
Only workaround would be to get an ATC AddOn, or just use VATSIM, as i do.