Jump to content

aussieh

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    34

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by aussieh

    YMML Runway 34 Circling Lead-In Strobes

    in Microsoft Flight Simulator

    Posted · Edited by aussieh

    Hi John,

    Many thanks for the quick response. After a bit more digging and confirmation from a colleague based in Melbourne, you are correct. Those three lead-in strobes have been decommissioned. Admittedly, I haven't flown into Melbourne for quite some time. You are also correct that strobes are part of the HIAL systems installed on 16/27. There used to be three white strobes extending ≈400m from runway 34 to aid in identification and differentiate from Essendon. 

     

    However, there should be RTIL strobes (Runway Threshold Identification Lights) [MSFS SDK lists them as REIL - Runway End Identification Lights] as evidenced by the chart and that video at the ends of the green threshold identification lights, and I'm certainly not seeing those. Looking at the AFCAD BGL, that entry appears to be as "FALSE".

     

    Sincerely appreciate your assistance in working this out. I figured I must have been missing something.

    • Like 1

    YMML Runway 34 Circling Lead-In Strobes

    in Microsoft Flight Simulator

    Posted

    Hi All,

    Before I submit a support request, is anyone else seeing the lead-in strobes for circling approaches on runway 34 (also aids misidentification of YMEN)?

     

    Current charts still list them as active, and I was unable to find any reference in the user guide or product page as to whether they were intentionally omitted due to MSFS limitations (I don't believe there is a sim limitation based on my experience with developer mode). 

     

    I've tried day and night time, as well as both developer mode (time changes) and normal mode. Runway 27 and 16 approach lighting is definitely visible, just not the strobes for 34.

     

    Cheers!

     

    No navdata for EDDT Berlin Tagel.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    According to a Navigraph forum post and AIRAC release notes, EDDT Tegel was added with AIRAC 2205:

    Quote

    AIRAC 2205 Revision 1 (2022-05-19):

    • AIRAC 2205 for Microsoft Flight Simulator released
    • navdata (navaids, fixes and terminal procedures) for the historical airport EDDT Berlin-Tegel added (available in the MSFS navdata + all MSFS addons)

    [Source]

     

    and from the FMS Data Developer:

    Quote

    Be aware, we are speaking from the datasets and not from the charts … we offer only the navdata for the outdated airport EDDT but no charts. Also, you can´t create a route with it because it´s an none existing airport (like VHHX) and there are no routes. So you must enter historical routes directly into your FMC/S, or Garmin.

     

    [Source]

     

    I checked in both the PMDG 737-800 and the default Cessna 172 and was able to select the airport and available procedures. I was also able to fly an ILS approach with the Cessna 172 to a version of EDDT that was present in the sim - I do not have the Gaya version of EDDT. There are a few sites around that offer charts from old airports (like EDDT, VHHX, etc.).

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2

    Microsoft Flight Simulator advertising

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by aussieh
    Further information re: direct URLs

    2 hours ago, HenningR said:

    Almost all the advertisment on e-mail from you are for MSFS which is in no interest to me at this time.

    Hope you are able to be more selective to each client and send only what he wants. May be some check boxes on the profile page might be an idea

    Henning

    Right at the very, very bottom of any marketing emails is a "Manage Preferences" link. At that link is an option to select the simulators that you fly. I wish to make it clear that I do not speak on behalf of Orbx, so this will only work if they use the mailing preferences when sending marketing emails. I assume because they exist they do, but just so you're aware in case you keep receiving emails related to MSFS.

     

    I unfortunately can't send you a direct link as each link is dependent on the user (i.e. if I post the URL I receive when updating preferences - you'll actually be updating my account, not yours).

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 2
    • Thanks 1

    Real life YMEN Question

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    1 minute ago, EasternT3 said:

    Hi Hayden,

     

    Thanks for the response, it's really helpful. I'll guess I will pretend to get a pavement concession until Tullamarine is released later this year :) 

     

    Joe

    No problems Joe - $250 each time, thanks :lol::P

    • Haha 3

    Real life YMEN Question

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    6 hours ago, EasternT3 said:

    A quick question for any Orbx Staff at YMEN and or anyone else who knows, what's the largest aircraft allowed at YMEN? Can the airport take a 737 BBJ? I can't find any information :)

     

    Thanks

    Joe

    Hi Joe,

    I found an article online from 2018 mentioning the Federal Government here had increased the limit from 45,000kg to 50,000kg (Source), however that is really only part of the story. Essendon Fields website reports that any aircraft with Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) of 50,000kg (110,230lbs) or tyre pressure greater than 1400kpa (203psi) requires a pavement concession (Source). From limited searching, it appears the BBJ1 MTOW is 171,000 lb (77,564 kg) and Goodyear reports their tyre needs to be inflated to 214psi. I would imagine the BBJ2 figures would be higher meaning the BBJ requires a pavement concession to land at YMEN. 

     

    YMEN website states:

    Quote

    If a pavement concession is required, a Pavement Concession Application form must be completed and provided to Essendon Fields Airport a minimum of 2 business days prior to the planned aircraft arrival date.  The application will be assessed on the basis of pavement strengths and surface characteristics only, and approval may be withdrawn at any time should pavement damage occur.

     

    Application fee $250 (plus landing fees)

     

    Short Answer: It's up to the Aerodrome Operator to decide whether they accept a BBJ or not. To my knowledge, BBJ's and larger tend to land at Tullamarine instead. 707's have landed there and apparently the maximum to date for weight is 148,325kg - Lyndon B. Johnson's Air Force One C-137 Stratoliner in 1966 and again in 1967. Do BBJ's land there regularly? Not to my knowledge. Could a BBJ feasibly land there? Likely possible with restrictions and a pavement concession.

     

    The Background

    Spoiler

    I'm not sure of your aviation knowledge level so I'll write it as simply as I can (please accept my apologies if anything comes of as condescending - definitely not intended):

     

    The size of the aircraft able to land is determined by both Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) and tyre pressure. This is complicated further by the type of pavement (asphalt, concrete, etc.) and whether it's rigid or flexible. The Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) and their counterparts (Jeppesen, etc.) publish these numbers in the aerodrome directory. This is referred to as the "Pavement Concession Number" or "PCN." The PCN is calculated for different runways, different taxiways and different aprons. The AIP figures apply to the respective runway, and then you may have MTOW taxiway restrictions listed on the respective aerodrome charts. Obviously, wingspan also comes into play however this is a different conversation.

     

    An "Aircraft Classification Number" (or ACN) is also calculated and as long as ACN (at a given weight) ≤ the PCN, the aircraft may land without restriction. However, as alluded to earlier there is the capacity to obtain a waiver or dispensation to operate an aircraft that is higher than the PCN. This may or may not come with further flight specific restrictions. A good example of this was when Qantas moved the retiring 747-438 VH-OJA from Sydney to the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society (HARS) in Wollongong (YSHL). Other than the other various dispensations required, it was reported that Engineers deflated the tyres to a much lower PSI as is normal thus reducing the ACN. I understand a pavement dispensation was still required, but that would have reduced the amount of damage that may have occurred. The lower PSI was obviously appropriate to the substantially lower operating weight, with normal inflation being calculated for absolute MTOW (plus safety margin).

     

    Wikipedia has a good overview for the calculation of ACN and PCN per ICAO specifications. 

     

    Quote

    According to the Wikipedia entry:

    If the ACN exceeds the PCN, some restrictions (for example on weight of frequency of operation) may apply depending on the national or local regulations for overload operations.

     

    With the exception of massive overloading, pavements in their structural behaviour are not subject to particular limiting load above which they suddenly or catastrophically fail.

     

    As a result, minor or medium overload operations may be allowed by the airport authority depending on the corresponding loss in pavement life expectancy.

     

    In 2020, with changes in aircraft and pavement design, the ACN-PCN method was deemed no longer appropriate and ICAO moved to a new Aircraft Classification Rating - Pavement Classification Rating (ACR-PCR) method.

     

    Regardless, when determining whether to issue a dispensation the aerodrome operator would need to determine whether they are happy to accept the corresponding loss in pavement life expectancy which would also need to take into account previous dispensations and how often the dispensation landings occur. A dedicated runway inspection would also normally occur after a dispensation landing and prior to any departures to ensure no pavement failure has occurred.

    Cheers,

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...