Runway numbers, heading, magnetic, airport info!

I lined up aircraft carrier's runway directly with a ground runway to get an easy start with trying out a carrier landing with the F/A-18, now that the free weekend was over I wanted to the same with the Su-33 on Caucasus, something didn't make sense on Senaki, seems like the runway number is "off" by 5 degrees ... then I figured out why is it so.

 

Many factors ... too many?

 

1. True heading
   
2. Magnetic heading
   
3. Runway number 2 digit limit
   
4. Runway number rounding to nearest 10th
   
5. No on-runway painted magnetic or true indicator
   
6. * Carrier runway offset
   

 

Unfortunately, I'm figuring these things out here and there without tail or head, so I had no idea about this magnetic thing until now, including rounding. I went researching and well, even if I understand it now, and lining up the aircraft carrier wasn't really a problem anymore, I still think this confusion needs some remedy for the future, including new players.

 

There's info around the forums spread across various threads which don't directly seem to be about this:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=214452&highlight=heading+runway+magnetic

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=104140&page=3

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=171274

 

H701DOaQvDM

 

After I watched that video I hope I don't offend anyone, I doubt the creator of the runway number or the manager of LAX is browsing this thread ... but what a mess - why on earth bother with the two digit limit for runway numbers ANYWAY?!?!

 

If there are two airports near one another with runways at the same angle, sometimes one of the airports will add or subtract one from the runway number to help planes differentiate between the airports.

Which is exactly the kind of stuff that goes agains what is supposed to be a standard and discredits the whole thing. Whoever is enforcing the dumb 2-digit rule is then discredited by the airports doing such arbitrary hotfixes, then why have any standard at all then, if they can do such things, anyone could just use a full 3 digit magnetic heading then and justify it.

 

So I think DCS should do something about it, in the editor's airport details page, where you have the general info about the airfield, there could be a section on the runways, which would include all of these numbers, all calculated and printed down.

 

I decided to not go into details of what is my idea of how this would look like, and will instead post that into a wishlist thread along with other ideas and other somewhat connected, like ATC.

 

But I would not delay to mention a pretty interesting feature idea which I got because of this, why is it interesting, because it may prove useful in all kind of other map building scenarios, not just the unlikely and obscure one such as lining up a carrier, the ability for the Map Editor to show runway guidelinenes, insted of using an aircraft and a waypoint manually, so that you could more accurately place units far away from the airfiled for , it wouldn't be necessairly for exact alignment, but you would get the idea of the proximity and angle of your units to a runway, I can't count how much times I subconsciously looked for an airfield just to not place something at and odd angle like perpendicular to a nearby runway,when not even trying to do any kind of straight alignment like this Carrier case, I did found a few times I wanted to place them otherwise, maybe there could be another perpendicular guideline with different color, perhaps these could be 2 separate toggable options, similar to those geographic grids. This wouldn't be shown on the F10 map ingame ofcourse.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Worrazen

So, you want to overhaul the entire aviation industry?

 

Since you don't think co-located airports should have different runway numbers, how about runways at the same airport with different numbers?

 

e.g. Phoenix Sky Harbor has three runways. The two on the south side are 07/25LR while the one on the north side is 08/26...

 

Oh, one other consideration: Magnetic Variation changes over time so there's really only a relatively narrow window where the Mag Var in DCS is accurate. IIRC, missions running between mid 2010 and mid 2011 will have correct Mag Var. Spinning the calendar ahead to 2018 will have you off by a few degrees...

Hi.

 

I'm not commenting on the carrier stuff - I'm no expert in those.

 

About runway numbering: Consider the runway number to be the runway's name. It is not supposed to be exact. If you have multiple parallel runways they will be marked for example 24L, 24C, 24R (Left, Center, Right).

 

Secondly, runway names are derived by rounding from the magnetic heading at the time of measurement. Magnetic heading changes all the time, and the rate depends on where you are on earth. So if a runway was named 15 years ago it the magnetic heading may in fact have changed so much that the heading may not round up to the same numbers.

 

To obtain the proper magnetic heading for a given runway pilots in real life refer to the appropriate aerodrome charts that give the exact magnetic heading for that time period (changes, say once in 1-3 years).

 

 

The problem with DCS is that the runway numbers are derived from real life airfields, but the headings are derived from DCS true north by magnetic declination. The problem arises from the fact that DCS true north does not resemble actual true north, but is in fact grid north (so at every single point on the map "true" north points exactly straight up on the map in stead of the actual geometric north pole). So when you derive the magnetic heading from this the headings differ from the real life counterparts. Since the runways are named after real life runways there will be disparity typically near the edges of each DCS map.

 

 

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

To add to the confusion, all FC3 aircraft instruments shows the DCS true north or the grid north, while the full fidelity modules are correctly showing DCS Magnetic north.

 

So from my understanding, the proper way of judging what runway heading one should use in dcs, is to measure the heading in the F-10 map and substract/add the DCS magnetic declination for magnetic heading in dcs.

 

Now, what happens when AI awacs, ATC etc.. call for bearing I don't know. I guess based on real aviation it should be magnetic, so If you fly F-15 and awacs call for bandits one will have to calculate the dcs true north on the fly for the fc3 f-15 instruments.

 

The whole story is very very confusing even for people which generally understand the concept.

Hi.

 

I'm not commenting on the carrier stuff - I'm no expert in those.

 

About runway numbering: Consider the runway number to be the runway's name. It is not supposed to be exact. If you have multiple parallel runways they will be marked for example 24L, 24C, 24R (Left, Center, Right).

 

Secondly, runway names are derived by rounding from the magnetic heading at the time of measurement. Magnetic heading changes all the time, and the rate depends on where you are on earth. So if a runway was named 15 years ago it the magnetic heading may in fact have changed so much that the heading may not round up to the same numbers.

 

To obtain the proper magnetic heading for a given runway pilots in real life refer to the appropriate aerodrome charts that give the exact magnetic heading for that time period (changes, say once in 1-3 years).

 

 

The problem with DCS is that the runway numbers are derived from real life airfields, but the headings are derived from DCS true north by magnetic declination. The problem arises from the fact that DCS true north does not resemble actual true north, but is in fact grid north (so at every single point on the map "true" north points exactly straight up on the map in stead of the actual geometric north pole). So when you derive the magnetic heading from this the headings differ from the real life counterparts. Since the runways are named after real life runways there will be disparity typically near the edges of each DCS map.

 

 

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

 

And if the magnetic heading changes to much the runway may be „renamed“ like we nearly had to do at our airport.

About runway numbering: Consider the runway number to be the runway's name.

 

That's a very good analogy here, considering that TRACON controllers tell the pilot to go to "18R" or "18L" for landing, and having those clearly defined names that are understood and recognized by all stakeholders, including all the navaids and tools in use (from approach plates to flight plans, to radar automation systems and flightdeck equipment) consistently is a rather good thing.

 

As any adapted points in the National Airspace gets renamed, all these aforementioned tools and navaids have to be adapted for those accordingly. That's a huge effort across all platforms.

Basically if your understanding of runway direction comes solely from its name, you're doing flying wrong. If it was found out that you were doing instrument approaches by just adding a 0 to the runway name and calling that the course you would be fired from any airline and removed from flying duty by any air force. There are authoritative documents for that info that you use instead.

 

DCS has a problem that its world is flat so it has a third concept of direction on top of the normal two. Real flying deals with directions relative to the grid of meridians and parallels as well as magnetic field. The direction true north is one of constant meridian toward the north pole by definition.

 

In DCS this isn't the case with north as measured by the ruler or GUI readouts are lines of constant Z. This isn't equal to the grid of meridians and parallels except for one meridian that runs through the center of the map.

 

The Caucuses terrain for example was made by overlaying a map protection of the real world onto a 2D surface and tracing its features. Vaziani as measured on the real world is about a 323 true heading. in DCS it's about 315 by the ruler. If you ruler a nearby meridian it's 352. This means that the runway heading with respect to the meridian in DCS is about 315+8 or 323. Add a 6E variation and one expects a magnetic heading of 323-6 or 317 real world or 315-6 309 DCS. This explains why the runway is named "32" in reality and is a bit of a head scratcher in DCS.

 

So the difference between the name and true for real runways is due to magnetic variation. In DCS the difference between name and ruler heading is because of magnetic variation and any map projection distortion. The combination of these may large enough to have the runway name mismatch the ruler direction by more than expected. The lesson is not to take the runway name too seriously in reality and doubly so in DCS.

The lesson is not to take the runway name too seriously in reality and doubly so in DCS.

 

We’re very serious about the RWY designators in real life flying! If you are cleared for takeoff on RWY 09, you do not takeoff from 27, or there will be hell to pay! :)

The RWY QDM (magnetic track) is based on the alignment to magnetic north. But as mentioned, there are other cases. Such as differentiating between nearby airports, or avoiding confusing designators like 02/20.

The exact alignment is available on the airport charts, which is used for navigation.

I find the un-specified use of headings and directions somewhat confusing, and, dare I say it, "unprofessional". I invariably put a T after any true directions and an M after any magnetic headings (and, of course a G after any grid direction). I would urge all to do the same - it eliminates confusion and only takes a second to do.

 

On the same subject, I seem to recall that until recently any headings given on the DCS map by using the distance/heading cursor (including in ME), identified them in the same way, usually with an M after them. Is my memory faulty about this? Alternatively is there any option to specify within DCS whether the cursor shows M or T?

 

Quite a few briefs provided with published missions do not specify headings, or - even worse -specify them incorrectly. This has become more noticeable since the introduction of aircraft carriers.

 

As for the changing Magnetic Variation (or, for modernists, Declination), since the maps are set in time and place, I see no reason to change the Variation. However, it would be nice to see it specified on maps, as is the case in real life.

 

I would add that I was an RAF pilot for nearly 40 years between 1961 to 1998, and my above observations are based on that experience.

Oh I forgot about this thread for a while ...

 

 

 

Magnetic Variation changes over time ...

 

Ohhhh....... another variable :fear:

 

Ofocurse I've found about that long time ago, never reminded until now, and this isn't the magnetic pole wobble right ...

 

 

 

Pretty much hehe, probably not the best person, I do have the benefit from looking from the outside which is a true phenomenon (the fresh eyes phenomenon), someone that's inside one particular field a long time may simply not notice there's a problem or simply tolerate it, that's how it works with programming (for example, because I had experiences there) when a fresh mind can spot a bug that the original author never did in all that time.

 

But you see now, why bother with these labels being close to the MagVar heading or whatever then, if they're never correct, and when airports do tricks to make it more clear, then they're just arbitrary labels and their similarity to actual heading can be considered purely a coincidence.

 

It feels like the natural tendecy with them is to have , why not drop the similarity then and focus on more clarity and something that could stay static for a long time, not saying it really has to be that way, just an idea.

 

The fact that the number on the airfield isn't accurate enough and the pilot has to look up the chart anyway is the single piece that breaks the whole idea. Isn't the idea to tell you the heading, so you don't have to look/memorize the chart. So IMO if it's not doing that it's fundamentally broken. But if that's not the point what is it then? What's the point of giving an estimate if the estimate isn't enough for a proper landing, and it's even worse for emergency, not only memory suffers but takes time and effort to check chart an emergency shouldn't have to bother with.

 

It's like a speedometer on some old train would show some number similar to the speed but if the train operator has to stop at a station correctly he needs a more accurate reading, he would have to walk to the back of the locomotive to check some pressure gauge inside the engine housing ...

 

 

So, you want to overhaul the entire aviation industry?

 

 

Well, they already are concepts of having escape capsule with parachutes, but in the meantime why on earth don't they put parachutes on airplanes :P

 

You would get at least some chance, depending if you get to exist and landing location. There's many possibilities and all it takes is figuring it out, everyone immediately thinks like there's no time to put it on and stuff like that, but if the whole procedures are developed around that you'd see it's not that far fetched after all, none of this exists out there right now, so there's no reference, ofcourse it doesn't make sense comparing it to the existing procedures, they don't have parachutes in mind, there's no thinking around that, yet.

 

It's not only about just randomly jumping off with a parachute when the aircraft disintegrates or whatever. With parachutes in mind a totally new procedures of emergency could be possibly developed. The priority could be shifted to flying over suitable parachuing landing area for those who wish to jump off rather than risk the aircraft landing procedure, only then the crew would attempt to land, but only themselfs would be at risk and the non-living aluminum and steel of the airplane. In case where damage is too high, the crew can assess this situation and vote whether to ABANDON SHIP completely, they would first dump all passengers, then find another location for the aircraft to crash land into, but just before that, they would rig the controls (and it could have such a feature officially, to lock controls to self-crash) and then the crew would jump off a few minutes before the aircraft safely crashes with terrain empty.

 

So you can see on a fundamental level it's only one direction type of mindset, they're trying so much to keep flying with something wrong, until they circle, dump fuel, more chatting, the procedure to try to land the aircraft first, only to potentially get in more trouble as the landing attempt has an even higher chance of causing the deaths or injury if the malfunction up in the air didn't (unless it's like fire or explosion but that still wouldn't kill everyone)

 

Anyway I didn't mean to go into parachute route, but you asked and I gave you an example off my head hehe.

Edited October 28, 2018 by Worrazen

Worrazen...

 

For your consideration:

https://brsaerospace.com/

Worrazen...

 

For your consideration:

https://brsaerospace.com/

 

Well yes but what about the 747 sized jets?

 

Still this is kinda a fresh IMO, it's not that well known out there except pilots themselfs, but there's still so many light ones without one, it's not mandatory either (not saying it has to be). Just a few months ago on the other side of the country here a small aircraft crashed with 1 pilot death, the airplane was used for lifting gliders.

 

 

I did mean individual parachutes, if you want a giant one for the whole plane then so be it, but I wouldn't replace, i'd keep the individual ones, the parachute of the plane isn't that, because it only works if the airplane is in one piece, which might not be in case of structural failure, explosion and possibly fire, including heavy weather and harsh manouvering.

 

 

It only takes some controls to be broken and it's could be a (near) supersonic nosedive, wouldn't that rip the parachute, would they anticipate they would be in a nosedive and activate the parachute in time, or automatic activation detect that? You might have a chance getting out of the back cargo doors under it so you don't get torn from the side, ofcourse you would need your own parachute to do that.

 

Unless you make a really special one , but you'd need some pretty good parachute to steadily stop pa plane going supersonic nosedive lol, it wouldn't be enough time before terrain ... still it's just more reliable to go full blown and have each seat be it's own escape pod with integrated parachute, it would be a lot better for elderly. There is not enough space to have each seat it's own shute, so it would be like 4 outgoing chutes/tubes and 4 could go down at once, but it would be automated so it wouldn't take that much for all of them eventually.

 

The problem is all the planes would have to be rebuilt in that case, if it were mandatory, and the last thing any CEO wants is a shakeup like that, so it's just down to how much do people that provide transportation services value your life.

 

 

I'm being optimistic here for a reason, I'm just giving it the thought to make a case for it, not that I'd be denying the all the other challenges it would take, but I obviously don't want to spend time explaining that, that's for the ones who would attempt it to figure out and go through, that's what they would be paid for, but I do know it's possible right now, and even much earlier, it doesn't need any bigger technology not already in existance.

 

While it feels like that an meregncy life saving system or backups are simply addons to the primary task, once you dig into it it turns out if you really want to reliably safe life then that is the basis under which the whole thing is designed around, so it turns into a big deal and that translates to big costs, but it all makes sense, life is priceless in the spiritual sense and it's not surprising the effort it would take, you would need to put a lot more into the aircraft/car/train/ship than it ever needed for the purpose it was built for, transport.

And the one time that chute fails to open?

 

We already are being bled dry by liability lawyers in the US.

Just thinking..... Life is hard enough without training oneself to worry about how it might end. It ends up with you being controlled by the group that tells you they can protect you.

*totally off topic.

This is why a new Cessna 172 will cost you damn near a half mil.

 

 

I've been told that fully 1/2 the cost of a G1000 C172 goes directly to a liability defense fund.

 

So very sad...