This was a new one on me. Approaching KMCO from OMN I requested the ILS 36R approach from ATC. I was cleared, but with something like "sidestep runway 35". I didn't get the whole thing, but on final I was cleared not to 36R but to runway 35. I still landed on 36R since my GPS was already set up on the 36 localizer. Any ideas on this one? Thanks. Tom

Probably you requested only the approach of ILS 36R and not landing runway 36R. You got to do both to let your plan work.Therefor you are given a RWY 36R approach with a side step to landing runway 35.Greetings!.

Yes it's a real world procedure - not used terribly often.One reason it can occur in FS is that the preferred landing runway is closed for landing by the airport data file - which can be an AFCAD file.The only time I've seen it though is when I ask for a different runway and not a different approach.Key - never accept the default vectors to final ILS approach, but do learn how to ask for a different approach.Second, most folks use Nav1 for the localizer and clidepath if available - which GPS system are you using?

I use it all the time in my real flying. My home airport has a 09l and a 09r but only 09r/27l has an instrument approach (ils 09r/bc27l). However, my hangar is located off of 09 left(27r)-so if if I am assigned 09r/27l I will ask for a sidestep to 09 left/27r if the weather is good enough-I can break off the approach when safe and then land on the runway that will get me "home" faster....With the cost of fuel and my plane burning 26 gal/hr. this can be a real money saver! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>I use it all the time in my real flying. My home airport has>a 09l and a 09r but only 09r/27l has an instrument approach> (ils 09r/bc27l). However, my hangar is located off of 09>left(27r)-so if if I am assigned 09r/27l I will ask for a>sidestep to 09 left/27r if the weather is good enough-I can>break off the approach when safe and then land on the runway>that will get me "home" faster....>>With the cost of fuel and my plane burning 26 gal/hr. this can>be a real money saver! :-)>>It's so great to have you real world pilots here Geofa to hear how it's really done! ... I always like a Geofa post thanks. :)

regardsEdaka Capt. P[/font color]i[/font color]c[/font color]a[/font color]s[/font color]s[/font color]o[/font color]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/edetroit100/eddd2.jpgMy FS9 Videos] AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD 256Mb DDR Nvidia 7800 GTX PCI-E, Audigy 2 ZSCH Products Yoke, Pedals and Throttle Quadrant[/font color

Thanks for the nice comments-Ed-and nice videos!Geofhttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Yes I agree. I like to hear 'real world pilots' comments, adds to the simming experience no end, but don't advertise the fuel burn on your aircraft 26gals/hour. .x( at least not in the UK. We'll have severe taxes slapped onto aviation fuel in a flash!!:(