Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Runway distance remaining signs + placement
On 9/9/04 at 9:00 AM Alex Perry wrote: >From: David Megginson >> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 21:35:30 +0200, Erik Hofman 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. > I like the heuristics suggestion. You might want to consider longer than 5kft *and* either wider than some value or having a precision approach, to weed out the long runways at small high altitude airports. However, the X-Plane data format does currently contain a "has distance remaining signs" flag. So, you (Chris) could download his data from www.x-plane.org/users/robinp and feed that into your script in addition to FG data, or alternatively get Curt to request that this flag gets added to FG data, at which point it will come available in the future. Of course, I'm not sure how consistent this flag is in his data wrt real life... Cheers - Dave This message has been scanned but we cannot guarantee that it and any attachments are free from viruses or other damaging content: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Runway distance remaining signs
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 22:01:29 -0400 > David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 18:35:07 -0400, Chris Metzler > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> 5. I don't know anything about how these signs are handled outside > >> the U.S. If you do, let me know. > > > > I'd be interested in knowing more about how these signs are handled > > inside the US. I've flown my Warrior to several US airports -- > > Massena (KMSS), Caldwell (KCDW), Philadelphia (KPHL), Boston/Norwood > > (KOWD), Republic (KFRG), and Plattsburgh (KPLB) -- and I do not > > remember ever seeing signs like you describe, though I might have > > missed them in the clutter at KPHL. I suspect that these might be a > > special case for a tiny handful of airports, not a common feature. David, I have yet to notice a U.S. runway used for commercial service that does not have them. However, because of their coloring and placement, they tend to be easily overlooked unless you _want_ them. That is, of course, a good thing ... avoid unnecessary distractions. Oh, and I noticed their presence in Manchester and Basel-Mulhouse too. There may be an ICAO rule for airports with international service that was the original impetus for sign installation on major rwys ... From: Chris Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'd be stunned if they weren't at KPHL. I've never flown into/out of > there, so I cannot say. I have and would have remembered if I had noticed them being missing. Of course, that doesn't mean that they really _were_ there, sigh. > And, sadly, I'm only hoping to be a pilot > in the future, so I definitely can't speak to small airports -- > which, of course, are most of the airports out there. But they're > a fixture at larger airports here; when I land in an airliner, I > always look out the window for these signs to see how much of the > runway the pilot uses. Yes, but that isn't strictly fair on the pilots. Just because they have to plan with balanced runway technique in mind does not mean that they _need_ as much runway as you observe being used. The takeoff profile at most airports is specified by noise abatement. Multiengine only have to stay in ground effect until blue line speed. Also, I often stay in ground effect to at least Vy for performance reasons ... even if I'll subsequently use a Vx climb to the pattern. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Runway distance remaining signs + placement
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
