Should we allow this airport

[joefremont]

Hi All,

We recently had a user that submitted a new airport for approval that does not fit our models so far. Our current policy is that we only allow real airports, airports that are in current operation or historic airports that were in operation but are no longer. We have allowed oil platform heliports because the are real infrastructural and real airlines actually fly charters out to them from the main land.

What was recently submitted is the Neu Mayer research station in Antarctica. Its basically a building out on the Antarctic ice, the institute that runs it does have two fixed wing aircraft that service it that land on the ice using ski's. There is no runway to speak of or any real airport infrastructure. And its not exactly stationary as the ice moves about 200 meters a year.

So I am not sure if we should approve this as it does not really have the feel of an airport to me.

[MMattyK]

There are 'lots' of things that don't seem to fit the environment that I have notced recently, like a Vulcan being on the available aircraft database, and yet the A400M won't be allowed, Croydon airport (historical main London UK airport) in the list of UK airfields for example.

I thought that originally, only airports avaialble with the FS9/FSX/XPlane databases would be allowed, and that no millitary aircraft would be allowed either, but as a concept, I don't have any issues, but think that there will have to be boundaries set and adhered to, as long as we all know what they are.

[joefremont]

Hi Mat,

I think the answer on the Vulcan/A400M question is that we allow military aircraft that have been sold/transferred to a civilian operator. In the case of the Vulcan, XH558 is a flying Vulcan that has been restored and is owned by the Vulcan to the Sky Trust. The A400M is not allowed for two reasons, mainly that it has not been delivered to any customers yet, but also that list potential customers are all military airforces. The C-17 is a better example than the A400M since it is in service but only with airforces. Boeing/MD actually offered it for sale but nobody bought. We do allow aircraft that were in service but no longer exist, an example is the Boeing 314 clipper flying boat of which 12 were operated between 1939 and 1946 but now none exist.

For Croydon, we do allow historic airports for those who wish to re-create airlines and routes of the past. Croydon was the main London airport until it closed in 1959, but it was an operating commercial airport. The Neu Mayer research station is not really an airport. Its a place were some aircraft land to service its mission, but if we approve it do we have to approve any possible place in the wilderness that a bush pilot could land and drop off or pick up a charter?

[CAPFlyer]

Here's the other problem with Neu Mayer - it's not serviced by commercial aircraft. The aircraft that service it do so on special permit, not under normal regulations. Even in Alaska, the bush pilots that do off-airport landings are doing so under established regulations as part of their normal operating certificate and the normal airspace system. At Neu Mayer and the other "floating" bases, they are not recognized airstrips, not specifically regulated, and any operator serving the bases have to have special permits to do so. As such, I think it's just a bit beyond the scope of what FSAirlines is about. At least with the "permenant" Antarctic bases that get served year round and are the focus of the "Deep Freeze" mission every year they are established airfields that have designated runways and whose operations are covered under standard aviation regulations for the country which operates them.