I’ve met this kind of tomfoolery multiple times. sometimes the ATC tells me to land in 28 (in such case), others in 10.
And sometimes I land in 28 and other AI traffic lands in 10.
This usually happens when the wind is weak (< 10kt), and in the case of live traffic, it could easily cause you and AI traffic to land at different sides.
And then there comes the issue of changing approach/arrival mid-air. Default ATC don’t like that, and you can easily confuse the heck out of them if you change your flight plan mid-air. Also, they don’t really allow you to change landing runway. If you change it, they will be like “runway 10 approach, circle to 28” (and when you actually need this for some airports like RJOO, you can’t.)
Sure, if I opt to VATSIM none of these would be a problem, but I’m still learning, and after the “must be capable” clause I think VATSIM bar just got raised a lot higher, and I must reach better proficiency before trying VATSIM.
I really hope Asobos/MS can fix this “Runway 28 in use, takeoff and landing runway 10” problem soon, and preferrably have ATC properly support changing landing runways (they notify you, not you find out from ATIS/METAR yourself) and circling approaches… My primary play area have a LOT of single-side approach airports (such as RJOO, where there’s only 32L/R approach, and if you need to land on runway 14L/R it will always be circling approach), and issues around these part has made IFR almost impossible.
P.S. Why do I must choose a platform tag? this is NOT related to platform at all.
Can you explain how these issues make IFR almost impossible? There are known problems with the correct winds matching ATIS and the primary runway. (Although IRL ATC occasionally will assign a runway having a tailwind.)
Regarding Circle-to-Land approaches, every IFR pilot should know how to fly them since circling minimums are listed on each approach.
Perhaps I should say “proper” IFR impossible.
You see, I can easily correct the runway if my FP doesn’t match active runway in VFR, but not IFR (because ATC easily go crazy when you change FP mid-air.
That’s what I was talking about.
I’m not saying I don’t know how to fly them. I’m saying it’s not possible to properly FP it in the current system.
Take RJOO (Osaka) as an example. Wind is 140 now, but it only has RWY 32 approach. I believe in the current system you need to first FP a RWY 14 approach, then switch to RWY 32 approach to trigger ATC telling you to “RWY 32 approach then circle to RWY 14”.
But here’s the catch: there’s no RWY 14 approach. At least none available on the world map page. So you would perhaps FP a RWY 32 approach then look for visual RWY 14 approach in the ATC page, which would then cause the ATC to tell you “Visual RWY 14 approach then circle to RWY 32” which is exact opposite of what you want.
For RJOO the VOR A approach can be used in a flight plan for either RWY 14L/R or 32 L/R. No runway is specified in the flight plan.
If the wind is 140 at 20, the RNAV RWY 32L transition CEREZ can be in the flight plan or requested from ATC. ATC will clear you for the RNAV RWY 32L approach circle to land RWY 14R. As soon as the airport is in sight, start the circle-to-land part of the approach by entering downwind for 14R. ATC will then give clearance to land on 14R.
I do not understand your statement about using an approach for 14R but there aren’t any but if there were, ATC would give instructions to circle-to-land runway 32L. The VOR A is valid for runway 14R. If the wind is 140 at 20, ATC won’t have you circle-to-land on 32L.
Try flying the VOR A approach to minimums and then circle-to-land whatever runway ATC gives you. Very valid for an IFR flight.
I’ll try the VOR-A for RJOO, but bear in mind there are airports that doesn’t have those. There sincerely are airports with only single-side approaches, especially in Japan.
(actually I don’t remember seeing VOR-A in RJOO.)
So to recap, basically you mean FP with VOR-A and set your destination as RWY 14, then change approach with ATC to ILS 32?
Because according to my experience the ATC will give you your planned approach regardless of the wind, and circling will only trigger if:
a. you planned for RWY 14
b. you switched to RWY 32 approach.
And of course what we are discussing won’t work against occasions where the wind changed during the flight.
Don’t be too fixed on the destination runway. When no runway is in the approach name such as VOR A approach, it is always a circle-to-land, non-precision approach. And all other approaches always have “circle-to-land” minimums. For example, RJOO ILS RWY 32L has circle-to-land non-precision minimums. So if the flight plan has ILS RWY 32L specified and if the wind direction changes and ATC changes the active runway to 14R, the ILS RWY 32L still can be flown with a tailwind to the circle-to-land minimums then break off the approach to land on 14R.
Arrivals are designed to funnel traffic arriving from different directions from high altitudes and speeds to lower altitudes and speeds to transition to an approach. For RJOO, the IF for the ILS RWY 32L is the same for VOR A. The STARs can be requested for either approach and can be used even if the active runway is 14R.
Both. In game works the same. The only thing in MSFS that is a known problem is the mismatch between the simulated or live weather and ATIS. I’m not sure where ATIS gets their info but it is always wrong. As far as wind shifting the active runway, I created a weather profile for ground winds at 140/20. Flew IFR approach into RJOO where the main runways are 32L and 32R. ATC gave me a RNAV 32L approach with circle-to-land 14R. When on base leg for 14R, ATC cleared me to land 14R. Except for ATIS, everything worked as designed.
IRL ATC at large facilities are reluctant to change the active runway even if aircraft are landing with a tailwind. It is difficult to re-route traffic close to an airport. Of course, aircraft should never exceed their company’s or aircraft tailwind or crosswind speeds. And the runway has to be long enough to land with a tailwind.
MSFS ATC has its quirks and bugs and limitations but improvements are being made.
I don’t know. From my experience ATC simply does not correct landing runway according to either wind change or real life situations (hence I land at 28 while real life traffic lands at 10.)
This is SU9 by the way, and perhaps a contributing factor is the wind was below 10 knots.
In a perfect sim world, the ATC should still try to not accept arrivals from both side of a runway though.
