From: David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 21:35:30 +0200, Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I do think so, don't we. > > I mean, this is an essential part of airfields, but don't know enough > > about this subject to assert that the numbers are always right this way. > > There's also the danger of overengineering our airfields
Yeah. Most of the airports I fly into have them, but then they also have instrument approaches and runways longer than 4kft. I'm tempted to say that we add them onto any runway longer than 5kft or having a LOC/ILS. Basically, if it is obvious (to the pilot) how much runway remains when at the midpoint of the runway for the minimum visual conditions ... I suspect that the signage is not installed because it would be pointless! class G airport can be clear of clouds ... but signage mostly missing. class E airport requires 1 mile visual ... need signage at 10kft rwy. class D airport can do SVFR and instrument ops ... signage at 3kft rwy. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
