Landing runway in use

[jgoggi 65]

Hi,yesterday I did a flight ending at Milan Malpensa (LIMC), where runways 35L and 35R are used most of the time. I left the arrival runway field blank in the RC4 controller options before starting RC4 and ATC instructed me to fly an approach to runway 17L. I thought "ok, it will be because of southerly wind" and complied, BUT when I was on the ground I saw other AI airplanes landing and taking off from runways 35. Why?? Shouldn't RC4 instruct me to the same runways used by AI?Another question: how can I know the runway in use in advance (during cruise or descent start), in order to program the FMC? It's not realistic that I know the runway in use only when I am handled to the approach sector.Thanks,James

[jd 57]

yes, you should have been given the same runway as the ai. what version of fsuipc are you using? if these keeps happening, thenlaunch rcclick debugload the .plnclick start rcduplicate the problem and send me the .logsecond question, once you are about 65-60 miles from arrival, you can leave frequency to get weather. you will hear the runway then. but that may change as you approach 40 miles, depending on what the ai are doingjd

[ronzie 21]

There were a couple of interim versions of FSUIPC that incorrectly communicated AI position to RC. Check out the latest version pinned at the top of the forum.As far as programming the FMC if necessary when approach contacts me with the runway go to the FMC DEP/ARR page and select the ARR for the destination choosing the STAR and runway or runway/IAP type. It will overwrite some data when you EXE it and on the LEGS page you may have a disco error with the runway listed twice. If so just LSK the first applicable waypoint of the STAR or the point on the approach path over the appropriate waypoint on the LEGS page to stack up the points in the correct order. If you intend to strictly follow the FMC route you must navigate it on your own by going into the RC menu and selecting the IAP you wish. You then will not receive vectors but fly the procedure with LNAV or MCP control. RC will contact you on final to contact the tower. If you wish to remain on vectors, for the purposes of situational awareness update the ARR on the FMC anyway but fly according to ATC instructions using the MCP, not LNAV/VNAV. If the STAR waypoints were already in your flightplan then just add the IAP under the runway column on the FMC such as ILS XX to get guidance but if taking vectors do not engage LNAV. Just keep the LEGS page updated as necessary.

[Debugger 0]

This might be related to the AFCAD file you use for LIMC. I have the "ISD Project Milano Malpensa 2005 LIMC", and in this AFCAD the runways 17L and 17R are closed for both start and landing. I don't know if that is realistic. The stock LIMC airport has no closed runways.So depending on the wind direction, I get instructions from RC4 to use e.g. runway 17L (from the weather report and the initial approach call). But when I am near the airport, RC4 suddenly tells me to use runway 35L. Perhaps this happens as soon as an AI aircraft uses 35L or 35R.JD, does RC4 care about closed runways? I don't know if makerwys.exe even extracts this information. At least, I can see (by looking at Runways.txt) that it took the AFCAD file from the correct scenery.Regards - Norman

[jd 57]

i don't know anything about "closed" runways. if the runway is picked up with makerwys.exe - then i see it as a stretch of pavement which i can use.depending on when you get your weather, the process goes like this....pick a runway based on ils, wind direction, length of runwayif i see ai landing or taking off, i use that runway regardless of what my first pick was. if i don't see any ai, i use my first pickas you get closer, i may see ai landing or taking off, and that runway becomes the rc preferred runway.it's all very dynamic, depending on what the ai are doing.jd

[Debugger 0]

That explains the behaviour.I will open the runways 17L/17R in the LIMC AFCAD file, don't know why they are closed anyway. Perhaps because the Alps are in the way ;-)Regards - Norman

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

Hi Norman,That's precisely the reason 17L and 17R are closed for landings. You would have to descend very steeply on finals. I suggest you leave them closed and continue to use 35L and 35R.Cheers,

[ronzie 21]

Interesting that AFCAD shows on the default and one that came with the ISD scenery a precision ILS approach for 17L which they show as closed runway. It might make sense to remove that ILS with AFCAD and rebuild the database so 17L does not show an available ILS. AI and RC should then avoid it.Circle to land is permitted east of 17/35.If there is a real world 17L ILS then the IAF would be SE between 72 and 275 where the 25 nm MSA is 3000. It would have to be a close in merge without a straight in.

[grajay 2]

An interesting topic and one I'd like to raise a question on.I have, from time to time found it difficult to decide which runway might be in use when there's a crosswind at or about 90 degrees. Is there any calculation used by RC4 to decide which runway to chose in such a circumstance.

[chrispeel 0]

Touching on this item,Milan Malpensa does use the 17 runways in real life.If the winds favour them to the extent that the 35s would not be practical or safe then they are used.The problem is that there are not so many navaids so approaches in low viz are protracted and en route holding is usually required,sometimes at cruise altitudes e.g.FL 370.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

I've just checked the ISD-supplied AFCAD BGL I have for LIMC and yes, both 17L and 17R are both closed for landing and take-offs. I set up a wind of 155 at 24kts and still departing aircraft choose 35L which probably means inbounds would also use 35L/R.This is very odd because aircraft could encounter real problems with such a strong tail wind. Having said that in all the time I've flown into LIMC the wind has always been light and nearly always from the north so in reality it may not be a problem having 17L/R closed.Cheers,

[jd 57]

depends on whether the winds are 89 or 91 degrees cross. even 90.001 degreeds or 89.999 - i just do the math. whichever runway heading is least affected by the crosswind, that is the one i choose.jd

[chrispeel 0]

Hi Ray and allThere is definitlely a procedure for the 17 runways!The MSA to the north is 10000 feet but there is room inside the 10 mile arc for a let down.The safety contours are around 5000 feet at that range.

[ronzie 21]

I forgot I acquired the plates from vatsim italia. Yes 17L does have an ILS. It requires entry (IAF) at VOR MAL at 5000 and doing a procedure turn ( outbound to the left at 336 out or 329) out at 8 DME MAL descending in the turn from 4000 to 3000 and going inboound at 169 IAM localizer. With RC This is best accomplished with an IAP approach, not vectors. At the Italian chapter of VATSIM all of the plates are available for download without registration. They match the ISD project scenery nicely.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

Thanks Chris. One of these days I'll get a southerly landing and will probably be searching around for that procedure. :7 Cheers,