A solution for crosswind runways with FSXPlanner

[jalsina]

I think I finally found a way to work Jim Vile's method with FSXPlanner.

My airport (SVMI) has two runways #10 and #9, but the heading difference is beyond the minimum 7.9 degrees required for both runways to be activated.

After exchanging some messages with Jim Vile and looking at this message (rfields posting): http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4965&highlight=crosswind
and after hours of testing (I am a newbie in all this Afcad thing), I have now a working airport with both runways active.

What I did is the following:

I set all the requiring parking, taxiways, etc., with FSXPlanner. After everything is finished, finally I need to create the fake runways (I need one only but other airports may need 10 or 12).

Since there is no place for another number between rwy 10 and 9 (this last one is used in the real airport for take-off only), I renamed 9 to 9B and created a third runway which I named 9A, with a heading 7.9 deg (or less)added to the heading of 9B (can be 7.9 less than the 10 rwy heading). The runway I created is quite tiny (3m x 3m) and has everything unchecked (no markings, no lights, nothing) placed at an altitude of 0 mts.

Finally I SAVE with FSXPlanner.

Then I take the XML editor (I use the freeware M$ XML Notepad) and change the latitud of the fake airport(s) and take them far away to near the Pole North or South (as suggested by jvile. In my case I just needed to change the latitude (see below).

What has to be considered for this "middle" fake runway has been explained in different messages, but this is my particular code for the example explained. This code is created by FSXPlanner except for the latitude tweaking:

<Runway lat="-80.60549179361646" lon="-66.98735875436897" alt="0.0M" surface="ASPHALT" heading="79.1" length="3.0M" width="3.0M" number="09" designator="A" primaryTakeoff="FALSE" primaryLanding="FALSE" primaryPattern="LEFT" secondaryTakeoff="FALSE" secondaryLanding="FALSE" secondaryPattern="LEFT" primaryMarkingBias="0.0M" secondaryMarkingBias="0.0M" />

FSXPlanner creates an empty XML older for the Markings and Lighting of this airport which I delete with the XML Notepad.

So I can say, that FSX Planner is perfectly usable for multiple runways activation, with a little effort with the XML editor (that takes a minute). Every time I need to edit the airport with FSXPlanner I will require to do this little editting with the XML editor.

I have wanted to post this, mostly for Russell. Until now if I build the fake runway in FSXPlanner and change the lat-long of the position (far away) and save, the BGLCOMP will compile but FSX will give an error while loading the airport terrain. Check this thread about the error:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5666

Besides once I change the runway latitude, I can't get the runway as ther eis no way to navigate between the elements other than the pointer (with mouse).
I hope all this can be of help for Russell and others that work with AFCADs.

The battle is not yet finished. I have problems which are particular for that airport only. I don't know why airliners prefer going to the secondary runway(9B) than the main 10 no matter the runway order. Most of them go to 9 and some aircraft have to taxi further for rwy 9 than rwy 10, which is located much near their parking spots.

I will keep trying.

Jorge

 

[jvile]

Jorge

I will take a look at 9 vs 10 to see why AI Planes prefer one runway over the other when xwind is active.

When you test make sure that no runways are closed on one end only.

 

[jalsina]

Jorge

I will take a look at 9 vs 10 to see why AI Planes prefer one runway over the other when xwind is active..

I am attaching an XML with 9B 9A 10 listing order. There is nothing yet about aprroach coding (I still have to figure out how to manage that section from the FSXPlanner). I guess it's using the one in the FSX files (if any at all). However I am not experiencing the kind of problems I mentioned in my previous e-mail (planes from above landing like stones).

When you test make sure that no runways are closed on one end only.

9B (9) is open for take off and closed for landing at one side (9) and opened for both operation at the other side (27) (when wind changes which is rarely).

I'll keep experimenting

Jorge

 

[rfields]

I would recommend leaving Rwy 9 as it is in the default - just use the alternate designator for the fake runway.

Setting the landing on Rwy 9 to closed is going to cause an issue.

In FS2004 it would be ignored, but in FSX it appears making that kind of change locks the sim into using the lowest numbered runway. There is still signficant testing needed to determine the exact impact upon AI behavior.

I would suggest you test your airport with both runways set open for landing and takeoff on both ends.

Then test with Rwy 9 and Rwy 27 both closed for landing.

Some of your parking - the Gate-H area with jetways - might fall within the extended runway centerline effect of Rwy 9.

SVMI is one of those airports in FS where landing aircraft arriving from the north may prefer the southern runway (09) and aircraft arriving from the south may prefer the northern runway (10). This is because the IAF for the two runways is crossed - with Rwy 10's IAF being south of Rwy 9's IAF.

The only approach I see for Rwy 9 would be the VOR approach, but the arrival sequence might assign aircraft that way. I seem to remember that happening in FS2004.

 

[jalsina]

I would recommend leaving Rwy 9 as it is in the default - just use the alternate designator for the fake runway.

Setting the landing on Rwy 9 to closed is going to cause an issue.

In FS2004 it would be ignored, but in FSX it appears making that kind of change locks the sim into using the lowest numbered runway. There is still signficant testing needed to determine the exact impact upon AI behavior.

I would suggest you test your airport with both runways set open for landing and takeoff on both ends.

Then test with Rwy 9 and Rwy 27 both closed for landing.

In fact I was thinking in closing 27 both for take off and landing.
The FSX default SVMI is lacking many building and obstructions. It's a matter of time there will be a new addon scenery for this airport (as good as the one for FS2004).
In real world, I have never seen an airplane landing in 9 or 27. Being this airport in the northern coast of South America, the winds blow from about 70-80 degrees (trade winds). When wind changes (rarely) for short periods of time, 28 becomes the only take off and landing runway available.

In real world the main terminal for local flights is right behind and quite close to rwy 9. A landing from 27 would endanger that terminal and would be quite difficult for airplanes to go around (probably turning left and over flying the airport). The runway 9 which is always open for take off is a difficult one to land into due to those buildings and the mountain behind it.

So, I would prefer leaving rwy 9 unused than landing there.

Something quite interesting is that the long taxiway parallel to rwy 10 is in fact an old runway (10R) and it's demarked for emergency usage. I believe it used to be the old main runway (during the fourties and fifties).

Check these pictures:

1- A view of runway 10 and 10R

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?...height=693&sok=&photo_nr=30&prev_id=&next_id=

2- A recent picture taken while landing in 10R. 10 was closed for repairs

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?...l cubgb_vq QRFP&photo_nr=34&prev_id=&next_id=

Some of your parking - the Gate-H area with jetways - might fall within the extended runway centerline effect of Rwy 9.

During my testing, where I can see a preferance for rwy 9 take-offs, I can see that ramp airplanes defined as GA ramps (in fact for turboprops like ATR-42 or BE-1900) and the ramp airplanes defined as gate_A are the most likely to take off from rwy 10. This makes me think that, other than some random aircraft, those which are closer to rwy10, are the ones to be chosen first.

The real problem is that the gates and ramps to the west of the airport are part of the international terminal, and all heavies park there (except cargos which are along the runway 9). Heavies and even smaller international airliners will always be seen taking off from rwy 10.

I am aware this is something I can't change until there is a sort of coding as it is for parking spots.

Currently I may divert all arriving flights from international airlines to that terminal, and local airlines to the other plus a few in the international ramp or gates.

Jorge

 

[jalsina]

Look at this site pictures:
http://images.google.com/imgres?img...ia&start=90&gbv=2&ndsp=18&svnum=10&hl=en&sa=N


If you look at the first bird-eye picture of SVMI, you can see that using runway 28 due to wind change, is a nightmare for ground controllers, because the taxiways do not get to the beginning (start point) of the runway. The aircraft has to go to the edge using the very same runway.

The extraordinary ground traffic picture in this same pageshows an ATR-42 landing in 27. Probably a desperate measure due to the traffic jam, inh view of a prolongated wind change.

Fortunatelly wind seldom changes as to need switching from 10 to 28.

The blue strip in the first (aerial) picture is the area for the future runway project.

Jorge

 

[rfields]

I understand your desire to get close to real world performance/ usage patterns, and runway usage in tropical regions - I've lived in Guam, Vietman, the Philippines and Antigua for several years each.

However, we are exploring new territority in FSX with some of these behaviors and we need to take small steps.

First step I'd recommend is just getting the X-Rwy technique working with all runways open.

Document which parking spots have a preference for an unexpected runway for takeoff in FSX. If you really want to test the airport, you will observe a runway assignment from each parking spot.

Your last real airport shot shows very clearly that the terminal near the end of Rwy 9 is on a straight line from the runway. Using that 'extended centerline area' to assign aircraft to Rwy 9 for takeoff is a behavior we cannot change with airport design.

I would also test by closing Rwy 9/27 on both ends for both takeoff and landing.

After you are sure everything is working and you start on the final design, if you have to close runways, FS is going to work best with one runway for landing and one for takeoff. Which would have to be 10/28 for landing due to having an ILS and 9/27 for takeoffs.

That isn't the patten you desire. One possibility is to shorten Rwy 9/26 to less than 7,000 feet. That will stop jets from taking off on that runway. If your AI aircraft are setup correctly - it might be possible to also stop heavier jets B737/ A320 size and larger from landing on that runway.

Rwy 28 and Rwy 27 are both choke points at this airport because their design makes a long back taxi and turnaround the normal behavior.

Though you want the final airport setup for something like 350 days per year usage of Rwy 10 - it's very important your airport be capable of working with the opposite runways.

I'm fairly certain it's going to take modification of runway lengths and some other tricks to make this airport work the way you want - and I'm not even sure that's completely possible.

Also, there could be many differences in AI behavior from FS2004 which we have not discovered yet.

It's almost a certainty that after people start producing many airport modification files - we are going to find new behaviors and have to figure out why and how to influence them.

 

[rf360m]

Besides once I change the runway latitude, I can't get the runway as ther eis no way to navigate between the elements other than the pointer (with mouse).
I hope all this can be of help for Russell and others that work with AFCADs.

This is certainly very interesting. That you, and everyone else, for the hard work on this! Perhaps we'll be able to incorporate an automated way of doing this into a future version of FSX Planner.

-Russell

 

[jalsina]

Thanks Rfields,

I made several suggested changes.

1) I changed rwy 9B designation back to 9. I left fake 9A unchanged.

I have already a long time observing what is going on in that airport. As I said before most of the departures are diverted to rwy 9:--> 90% ramp airliners (in front of local gates and closer to rwy10) are sent to 10, 90% gate local flights (easternmost) are sent to 9 and 75% international terminal (west) are sent to 9.

I tried making changes in the fake rwy heading (closer to 10 instead of 9). I renamed to 10 B, 10 R. Changed the order of runways. I tried two fakes in between. Same result.

I did what you suggested. I activated 9/27 for both take off and landing. Since there is no approach, planes come in high and land a very steep angle.
But the final result no matter the combination and 9 activation is always the same-->about the same percentages mentioned above.

My final try was creating another fake above 10 (as 11) and leave a fake between the real runways. And in this condition all flights are sent to 10, and 9 is ignored.

I am sure the problem has nothing to do with FSXPlanner

As of the working combinations, I need exactly the opposite of what is happening: ramp flights and a few local flights from gates to 9, and almost all international flights to 10.

I have a theory that the relative distance between the parking spot and both runways axis is deciding where ATC sends the flight. But I am not sure at all.

After you are sure everything is working and you start on the final design, if you have to close runways, FS is going to work best with one runway for landing and one for takeoff. Which would have to be 10/28 for landing due to having an ILS and 9/27 for takeoffs.

This would be similar to the solution I am getting right now, with the difference that a few flight would go to 10.

That isn't the patten you desire. One possibility is to shorten Rwy 9/26 to less than 7,000 feet. That will stop jets from taking off on that runway. If your AI aircraft are setup correctly - it might be possible to also stop heavier jets B737/ A320 size and larger from landing on that runway.

I had thought about this, but had no idea about the size required. Not a very academic solution indeed. If I could at least divert all heavies to 10.....

Rwy 28 and Rwy 27 are both choke points at this airport because their design makes a long back taxi and turnaround the normal behavior.

Though you want the final airport setup for something like 350 days per year usage of Rwy 10 - it's very important your airport be capable of working with the opposite runways.

I'm fairly certain it's going to take modification of runway lengths and some other tricks to make this airport work the way you want - and I'm not even sure that's completely possible.

Also, there could be many differences in AI behavior from FS2004 which we have not discovered yet. .

I tested the airport with both 27 and 28 activated and a (western wind) and it works fine with the problems implicit in that airport.

BTW, I used to be a frequent flyer, and was able to catch a few 28 (at that time 27) landings, normally close to noon and always with good weather. And I took off many times in 10 and a few in 9.

Please Jim and you (and others around this forum) keep in touch. What matters here is discovering something new and getting FSXPlanner (and other future tools) to work with crosswind runways. While I have never been in Afcad I always expended more time "designing and discovering" than "playing".

Jorge

 

[jalsina]

This is certainly very interesting. That you, and everyone else, for the hard work on this! Perhaps we'll be able to incorporate an automated way of doing this into a future version of FSX Planner.

-Russell

When you are ready I can get an XML for you to test, with the FSX memory error mentioned in another message linked above. This would be an XML obtained with one fake runway (or more than one) and then saving from FSXPlanner. This means all the job is done from FSXPlanner with no XML edition.

Jorge