Don't know if this forum is the proper place to ask this question, but thought I'd try.  Looks like the stock definition for Sacramento KSMF is wrong in FSX.  Looking at the design using Airport Design Editor, I notice that the runway headings are wrong.  For instance, Runway 16R has a heading of 180 degrees instead of 164.  The other runways are also mis-aligned.  Can anyone point me to a correct definition for KSMF?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Jim Driskell

 The headings in ADE are true, what you fly mostly in FSX is magnetic.

Maybe so, but if you look at other stock airports, the ILS heading corresponds to the FAA approach plate.  For instance, the KMWH (Moses Lake, Grant County)  approach plate shows an inbound course of 324 degrees.  The ILS fan on the stock representation for KMWH also has a heading of 324.  Not so with KSMF. 

 

Jim Driskell

I've always had trouble flying the ILS Rwy 16R approach at stock KSMF.  It always brings me in way to the left and isn't flyable whatsoever.  Perhaps related?

Runway 16R heading is currently  164 magnetic, 181 true.

 

The approach course is 166

Seems reasonable to me (overlay ADE airport on Virtual Earth and OSM data):

 

 

 

 

scott s.

.

 

Nothing wrong with the airport layout or location.  The problem is with the stock ILS glide slope.  Heading for 16R should be 166 according to the current FAA approach plate, NOT 180 listed in the stock ILS fan.  I think I'll try to alter the ILS glide slope and see how it works.

 

Jim Driskell

Have you checked the File Library for an updated/corrected file? Thing you will find what you are looking for.

Pretty sure there is an updated ILS in there. While the problem is certainly not the overall placement of the field, the layout is far outdated and the airport has undergone so many changes since FSX's release. Trouble is, the airport is probably a little small, a little underpopulated, and whatever else that doesn't really seem to appeal to developers to recreate it to today's standards.

Nothing wrong with the airport layout or location. The problem is with the stock ILS glide slope. Heading for 16R should be 166 according to the current FAA approach plate, NOT 180 listed in the stock ILS fan. I think I'll try to alter the ILS glide slope and see how it works.

 

Jim Driskell

Jim, I hope you meant the "localizer" (which is what provides lateral guidance), as the "glideslope" transmitter provides vertical guidance...

 

...and is located at the opposite end of the runway from the "localizer" antenna, and offset to one side of the runway.

 

It's also critical to keep in mind that although the world certainly marches onwards, FS remains stuck in time; things never change. Using current charts for navigation will always lead to frustration, not to mention innaccurate navigation. ^_^

I did mean localizer, sorry.  I also found an update in the AVSIM library that I'll try.  I guess my whole idea was to try to figure out the problem with the stock airport and correct it myself.  It appears that the heading of the ILS fan is true while the heading for the KSMFapproach plate, airport diagram, etc, are magnetic.  Is this the rule?  If so, why is the heading of the ILS fan for KMWH the same as the approach plate?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Jim Driskell

jmdriskell, on 22 Jun 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

I did mean localizer, sorry. I also found an update in the AVSIM library that I'll try. I guess my whole idea was to try to figure out the problem with the stock airport and correct it myself. It appears that the heading of the ILS fan is true while the heading for the KSMFapproach plate, airport diagram, etc, are magnetic. Is this the rule? If so, why is the heading of the ILS fan for KMWH the same as the approach plate?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Jim Driskell

Yes, the facility data in FSX is based on true headings. For KSMF the runway/LOC headings (true) are

16L 180.76 MDK 180.76

16R 180.75 SMF 180.75

34L 000.74 HUX 000.74

 

SMF heading is wrong in stock KSMK.

 

When you look at approach charts, the approach course is based on the FAA's MVAR for the facility which is

MDK 1980/E17

SMF 2005/E15

HUX 1980/E17

 

As you see FAA has updated the MVAR for SMF to the 2005 epoch (I'm guessing this is due to SMF being CAT II/III?) that's why approach course for SMF is 166M and for MDK is 164M. The actual localizer antenna patterns are parallel to one another. (See also the RNAV approaches for 16R show 164M)

 

BTW also according to FAA the LOM for 16R (SM) was decommissioned 5/31/2012.

 

I think you will find the heading for KMWH LOC MWH (and 32R runway) is 342.15 and the approach course is 324M (FAA MVAR for MVH is 1995/E18 East is Least so 342 - 18 = 324)

 

scott s.

.

Thanks for the clear explanation of the KSMF problem.  Too bad there isn't a central clearing house for airport updates that can be easily fed into FSX.

 

Jim Driskell