Taxi speed penalty during take-off run

[IslandBum]

which does NOT explain why when I rebuilt the afcad for Oban John and reindentified it as EGEO that both FS and FSA accepted it quite happily


Leif

[Quantum]

Leif,

I can't comment on why EGEO was accepted as a new airport but it shouldn't have been. We had ended up with the same airport one on top of the other with different ICAO's and slightly different locations. These things do slip through and this is one of them. All edits are accepted manually by any of the admins and was obviously accepted in error. I can only apologise for the inconvenience caused and I shall try and find out who did it, keel haul them and cat-o-nine tail them so that these errors hopefully will reduce in number.

Regarding why FS and FSA accepted it, as I said earlier it is just FSA that needs things aligned. You can call Oban 'The Back of Beyond ' in the afcad, FSA won't mind as it just looks at your lat/lon via FSUIPC and compares it to the database. The new Oban had been created as EGEO and your plan was filed to EGEO. Luckily, when you landed, you were closer to the lat/lon for EGEO rather than that of OBN. If you'd been nearer the lat/lon of OBN you'd have been dinged for landing at wrong airport and then you'd really have been pi$$ed.

BTW, you wouldn't believe some of the damned stupid edits that get submitted. Someone yesterday submitted an edit for the Boeing 737-200 to change to it from 'out of production' to 'in production'

Regards

John

[IslandBum]

Actually it wasn't a stupid edit
Oban was loaded by one of the members of VHA - originally as OBN/EGEO as you say the computer doesn't give a damn so long as the 1s and 0's match up - in this case he used FS9s lat/lon to load it into FSA- so there was no -problem whatsoever -- as you
say its nomenclature and He used the correct Nomenclature - In actual fact we are currently working on a scenery for
EGEO using the same lat long for the ARP as FS9 and FSA however it correct many small errors that Microsoft made - replacing the exsisiting runway with the new one and adding a correct apron area and will include a photo-real scenery for the terminal
and tower there -- so your telling me I cant make an accurate model of an airport and use it in FSA?


Leif

[Quantum]

Leif,

I wasn't suggesting your edit was stupid. There already existed OBN so EGEO wasn't 'needed'. Nothing to stop you making accurate airports for Flight Sim and naming them accurately by todays standard. BUT....................for FSA, currently, everything is aligned with FS9. Nothing to stop you using your EGEO afcad as long as your pilots and you know that Oban in FSA is OBN. I think I've flogged this one to death now giving the reasons. if you want to get the policy changed you'll have to speak with Joe/Konny/DK. Maybe they can code FSA to allow airports to have multi personalities to be recognised by every sim.

Regards

John

[joefremont]

This thread seams to have gotten a bit off topic, and a bit heated.

We currenlty only have one airport at Oban in the database and the next closest is 17nm away. My favorite website for verifing airports does list EGEO as an active airport.

http://www.the-airport-guide.com/airpor ... ts_id=1173

So if I saw this in the list of new airports I would have approved it. There have been cases where the ICAO code has changed since FS9 was released and we leave it as the old code. In this case the airport has a ICAO code but FS9 is not using it using to identify the airport. I could go either way but am inclined to change it back to EGEO/OBN. Even though I know thats going to make things difficult for those using FS9. Does FSX list it differently?

[XR219]

Hi Joe,

NATS in the UK certainly have Oban as EGEO, and yep, FSX has Oban listed as EGEO which is correct.

[CAPFlyer]

I have edited the airport in question to be EGEO. This is a (right now) one-time-only exception to our general rule simply because FS9 shows the IATA code for the airport and not a vaild ICAO code. Because of this, I think it appropriate to avoid confusion by listing the IATA code where it should and the ICAO where it should. I get the impression from looking at data that it's been EGEO for some time but that some sort of data error caused FS9 to show it as OBN instead.

[WIF1073]

The UK AIP as amended 28 August (AIRAC 10/2008) adds Oban EGEO to it's Airfield Directory (as it also does Coll EGEL and Colonsay EGEY) I suppose that must be the "official date" although my old Pooleys from 2006 shows Oban as EGEO even then.

http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/in ... id=13.html