There are actually two airports here - the airport you have selected is actually Villa Char Mar (1FA9), which is a paved strip about 500’ to the east of the non-paved Jubilee Acres (FD10). The runways are parallel, and both are currently designated 18/36 in official data. So you’re right about the mis-designation (more on that in a minute).
The airports are so close together that despite having different info blocks on the sectional chart, the symbology overlaps and you only see the airport symbol for 1FA9. That said, the sim seems to have placed FD10 in the wrong place, as the graphics you show are overlaying the 1FA9 runway.
As far as it being the wrong runway number, magnetic variation changes. The runways are both aligned at about 180°/360° true, but magnetic variation is currently close to 7°W, which makes their magnetic heading closer to 187°/007°. It’s possible it was re-designated at some point in the last several years, but I can’t currently find evidence of that.
Either way, somewhere along the line, something interpreted that as needing a 1/19 designator. But as airport owners generally don’t change designators until they have to (even moreso for private airports and soft runways), so they remain the same, despite the heading change, until a repaving project or recertification (again, very rare at private fields). Thus, you often run into discrepancies between designation and heading.
Clear as mud, right? I hope that background info helps folks who are looking at issues like this in the future. The sim tries to do its best, but it’s going on several disparate, often incomplete sources of info and gets airport details wrong a lot. It needs human touch and interpretation.
It would be awesome if they added the Verín-Oímbra airfield in Spain, its located right in the south of Verín, almost in the frontline with Portugal, its ICAO is LE419 (Aeródromo de extinción de incendios de Támega)
Identifier - VANM Name - Navi Mumbai International Airport Category - Missing Airport/Helipad Description - The airport is missing entirely from the simulator and is not available as a selectable location.
Just adding to @Speed1994 's link in the previous post by including the list of airports in the drop-down below so that the fix will be found when a user searches this topic by referencing the airport’s ICAO.
Fixes in (AIRAC) cycle 2605
KALW - Fixed runways 7/25 and 17/35 should be closed
KBLM - Fixed wrong taxiway signs placement
KCMR - Fixed missing airport
KCPT - Fixed missing building arount the airport
KDVO - Fixed misplaced beacon tower
KEDW - Fixed missing parking spots near runway
KILM - Fixed missing terminal building
KLAS - Fixed some jetways not connected to terminal
Anyone else seeing elevation issues at KMRY? I just tried it in SU5b.28. No idea if this issue existed prior to the release of beta 5.1. But I’d hate to climb or descent to those runways on an angle like shown below! This is on a perfectly clean version of MSFS2024 (no add-on’s, additional programs running, etc).
Regards
Description: There are some fscking buildings on the taxiway that I learned the hard way has collisions enabled. I am so mad because I keep flying for hours only to discover the mission is uncompletable because of this ish.
The list of issues found at the beginning of this thread has been updated with the fixes from SU5 and latest AIRAC per the release notes except for Gaya’s updates. It doesn’t look like any of Gaya’s fixes were pushed to SU5 despite them listed. Although Gaya’s fixes are listed in the release notes, the first issues I checked remain present in the sim, which suggests those changes may not have been included in SU5, so I did not continue a full verification pass.
As mentioned earlier, until World Hub is released or Asobo / Microsoft make significant updates to their tools to address these en masse, updates to the list will drop off in frequency significantly. They are aware of this thread and monitor it so continue posting new issues you discover.
This thread, thanks to all of you, has been in the top 5 on the Issue Tracker for months. Many of these issues have existed for over 5 years, since the launch of MSFS2020.
The overwhelming majority fall into one of these categories:
Terrain and obstacle issues on runways, helipads, taxiways, or aprons causing damage to aircraft
Missing and/or incorrectly placed taxiway signage or markings
Incorrect taxiway, gate, runway designations
Missing terminal buildings (jetways are visible but the terminal is missing.).
Numerous helipads with only the satellite overlay present (poor image quality), specifically pads on the ground.
Outdated or incorrect airport layout. (runways, taxiways, aprons, windsocks, control towers, aircraft parking spots, etc.)
Numerous missing locations, locations with incorrect identifiers, or locations active in the sim which should be closed.
Overcrowded aprons or incorrectly sized aircraft parking spots
Given recent advances in AI, it would be encouraging to see Microsoft explore tools that could integrate digital data from AMDB providers and other sources into the sim. The potential use cases would likely extend beyond MSFS.
Thanks a lot for your dedication to maintain this thread! I fully support the call for extensive features to maintain the airport database, as its age is becoming more obvious with each report.
There isn’t a refueling box in the middle of the parking spots IRL at WATE
also the parking area is much larger than depicted.
This is what I encountered at WATE - refuelling in the middle of the parking area
Also runway is longer than depicted - there is a significant shortfall even in the game. One of the parking nodes accomodates large aircraft so needs longer runway.
Identifier: EGCC
Name: MAN ILS LOC 23R/05R/05L
Category: Navdata
Description:
ILS misalignment of the LOC for runway 23R in Manchester. The LOC stands far left next to the runway centerline. As indicated by the screenshot: The A320neo is already (falsely) left from the centerline and LOC indicator still says that the plane should move further to the left of it, aggregating the wrong aircraft position. The issue is in MSFS 2020 and also in MSFS 2024.
Edit: The ILS / LOCs for the remaining runways 05R and 05L are also misaligned. Both are standing left to the center line. I also had the slight impression, that the G/S for 05L is to steep. See also this post for the discussion: Misaligned ILS EGCC RWY (23R/05L/05R) still not fixed
I am not sure what to make of this, not sure if this is categorised as an airport issue or UI issue.
Identifier: LKMH
Name: Mnichovo Hradiste
Category: Runway/taxiway…UI issue?
Description: There are two parallel runways. 06 and 24 are 8112ft asphalt, 06L and 24R are 3202ft grass. The asphalt ones do not have a L and R designator.
On both the flight computer and EFB, I was able to choose any of the four runways for landing, but in the communications tab I could only choose 06L and 24R which are grass fields and not appropriate for the CJ4 I was arriving in. I decided to choose 24R and land anyway but got hit by a runway excursion and taxi speeding hit because apparently the runway clearly marked with a giant 24 number counts as a taxiway.
Also I tested it in free flight and there I was also able to choose any runway for departure and arrival so it is literally only in the communications tab this issue is in.
