Runway Assignment

[jdkirk904 1]

Why is it the ATC assigns a 9000 foot runway for a 747 to takeoff, when the desired runway length should be at the minimum 12000 feet? The 747 call sign evens announces heavy. Is there a way to change the active runways?:-hmmm

[RFields5421 1]

Not really - mikewmac did some extensive testing on how FS assigns runways - http://www.flightsimmer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22543Basically 7,000 ft or longer is the acceptable length for any AI aircraft in FS2004.There has been no testing to indicate the user aircraft is assigned takeoff runways any differently - though the user aircraft will always have the option of selecting a different parallel runway for takeoff unless the AFCAD has closed that parallel runway for takeoffs.12,000 ft is a bit long for a "minimum". I've personally seen fully loaded 747-100's & 747-200's operate comfortably from a 8,000 ft runway in the tropics.When I was in Japan, the very heavy B747SP regularly operated from the 9,845 foot runway at Osaka (this was before RJBB was built) and similar runway at Sapporo - the 'old' Chitose airport.

[jdkirk904 1]

Reggie,Thanks for your prompt reply. Problem is when using the RFP 747-200 and all of its associated Pax Loader, Fuel calculator, and Take off program, you end up needing a runway of at least 10,500 feet. This was at Honolulu with a 22 degree oat, 30.01 alt setting and a take off setting of 1.48 for FFRAM. The ground gave me a departure runway of 4R (9000) feet. After taxiing and getting clearance to take off, I lined up, set the brakes, hit the throttles, released the brakes, and damned if I ran out of runway at least a thousand feet. Asking for a different runway gets you 4L which is even shorter. What I'm saying, is why doesn't ground assign you a runway longer when you are a "heavy" aircraft.

[greeneg 0]

You might want to check your trim and flaps settings. Trim of about +8.5 and Flaps 10 ought to get you off in less than 10,000'.You didn't mention your GTOW or wind direction and speed. As to why the ATC assignment was what it was, who knows......Ed GreenKCLThttp://www.panelshop.com/DEV.jpg

[gab523 0]

Kirk, Just another point of view. Since you can open a flight plan once you are in the air, you could just go to the airport. Then taxi to the runway you want, after listing to the ATIS to find out wind direction. Then take off, and then open your IFR flight plan. I know that this is not as real as contacting the clearance delivery, ground, and tower, but it would allow you the runway of your choice. It is just a thought. It is your world and you can do what you want in it.Glenn

[RFields5421 1]

The 4/22 runways are the default at PHNL for light winds - I have no idea why except that their base heading is closer to 001 than the Rwy 8/26 pair.We think this controls the calm/light winds default at about two thirds of the airports in FS. But we find plenty of airports where the coding requires winds above 30 kts to change the active runway (KLBB for one).Since the 4/22 runways are not parallel with the 8/26 pair, the ATC sees the 8/26 pair as closed when using the 4/22 runways. You are assigned to the longest possible parallel runway.This is due to the new system of using real world approaches built into FS2004. The programming does not allow non-parallel runways to be used at the same time.If you have the default scenery - you need to download Jim Vile's PHNL Active Approach from the Avsim Library. The AFCAD uses the crosswind runway star technique of fake runways to make FS think the 4 and 8 runways are parallel.With that AFCAD you can ask for the longer runway for takeoff.Jim also includes some really neat approach concepts he figured out to make the AI traffic use the 22 & 26 runways without flying through the mountains.

[scott967 62]

Hopefully in FS10 they will expose the runway assignement logic to an API so that you could set the logic to be followed.scott s..

[ailchim 207]

You can use Afcad (afcad221.zip) to close runways altogether or to close them for take-off or for landing. This then applies irrespective of wind direction, but to all aircraft, whether a 747 or a turboprop.This may help somewhat at airports where there are short runways which are not used operationally (e.g. Heathrow, where only the two 12,000 foot 9/27 runways are used and the 6,500ft 5/23 is not used at all as far as I know. However, I don't know of anything which can select runways by reference to the size of the aircraft - and still less its weight - which I think is what you were really after.

[Guest]

Wow, so Schiphol in the real world should not allow any 747s to ever take off?

[Guest garwig]

>Hopefully in FS10 they will expose the runway assignement>logic to an API so that you could set the logic to be>followed.>>I second that. I would love to be able to tweak the departing AND landing runway selection rules.

[Guest tcable]

I was in Hawaii a few weeks ago and here's what I sawThe8's used for arrivals and departures. Most deaprtures on teh Reef runway (8R) Arrivals on 8L. Some smaller aircraft (GA and a few Aloha/Hawaiian 732/717's) on the 4's.My afcad is configured to close the 4's at all times and only use the 8/26's. In my flights through HNL, we always landed on 8L, departed on 8R. No Kona winds, so that was with the previaling winds. It has been the 26's of late due to Kona winds.Remember that there are mountains just a few miles off of the departure end of the 4's.Plus teh airline terminals are along 8L so that usually givesd the shortest taxi for air carriers.Traffic is not an issue there at any time of day, so this is a fine arrangement.Now if only I could get a better way of managing KBOS based on Real live, I'd be happy, but my current star is OK.

[Guest jkramer51]

After you request taxi and atc tells you which rwy to taxi to, there is one option to select another rwy in the reply. Then you can pick a longer rwy.

[srgalahad 3]

>Reggie,>>Thanks for your prompt reply. Problem is when using the RFP>747-200 and all of its associated Pax Loader, Fuel calculator,>and Take off program, you end up needing a runway of at least>10,500 feet. This was at Honolulu with a 22 degree oat, 30.01>alt setting and a take off setting of 1.48 for FFRAM. Welcome to the real world. Sometimes runway selection is not solely controlled by wind ( construction, traffic, navaids, etc.) so, like the FS world you can't always HAVE the longest runway. In that same real world, the planning is done in Flight Ops before the airplane is loaded which is why you, the passenger, may get told your bagae is on another flight -- they had to off-load some weight to allow the aircraft to use the available runway(s). Looking at your numbers, you've got a loaded Fat Albert with a hot, humid day so it's not surprising that you may be in excess of allowable gross weight for the current operation.. just like "real life". Taxi back, boot out some of the pax, off-load bags and maybe fuel and restart. Unlike FS9 the real pilots can request another runway and ATC has more flexibility than the FS algorithm to approve and co-ordinate it.. along with things like "Runway 08 is approved, taxi via ... anticipate a 10 minute delay due inbound traffic Runway 4R". a $60 computer program just ain't up to that level of service!The>ground gave me a departure runway of 4R (9000) feet. After>taxiing and getting clearance to take off, I lined up, set the>brakes, hit the throttles, released the brakes, and damned if>I ran out of runway at least a thousand feet. Asking for a>different runway gets you 4L which is even shorter. What I'm>saying, is why doesn't ground assign you a runway longer when>you are a "heavy" aircraft.Also, don't forget: "heavy" is just an alert for ATC that the aircraft is 250,000 pounds GTW - primarily for wake-turbulence separation minima. We don't know what you really weigh. That's why the pilot earns the big bucks and is tasked with the go/no-go decision. It's not just you big-iron fans either... a hot summer day in Telluride Colorado will be beyond the capabilities of a laden C-172 if the density altitude is high enough. Once again.. a $60 computer program....So, if you want to "simulate" the real world, accept that stuffing it full IS a good sim.. and I'll be glad to make the call to the Virtual NTSB .. right after I phone the news tip into the VIrtual Honolulu Times as you run out of runway.ATC_Rob-- 30 years of watching the scariest moment of a pilot's life(landing) ... sometimes 500 times a day --

[Guest tcable]

IRL, ATC can be flexible. I work in Boston so we have a mix of flights and aircraft- both International and domestic, Express and mainline.There is always one 10000 foot runway available for departures (15R/33L or 4R/22R) The A330/340's need it for Europe, and the long haul (JetBlue) A320's need them.Boeings can use a 7000' deaprture runway for the flights here- no legs longer thatn ~3500nm. I watch the 744's and 772's for London takeoff on 27 all the time. AMS is the furthest destination from Boston that is flown to non-stop, but China is in the works.When I flew to CDG last year on an A343, we took off on 4R and used most of the runway. 4L is the standard departure in that config as it is closest to the terminals. Airbus just has a different engineering philosophy.In a few weeks I'll be on a 757 for CVG. We could usea 5000' runway for that flight!Boston's average segment is probably around 600 miles- lots of short flights under 1000 miles, with a number of west coast and Europe flights.