25 replies to this topic

[CMOS]

There are a few bases(Kirtland and Charleston for example) that share runways with an International Airport.  In the case of Kirtland, I would like to to divide Kirtland from Albequerque Sunport leaving two different airports:Alb. Sunport remain as KABQ and have Kirtland as 1ABQ.  I want Kirtland to t/o and land on 8/26 only while Alb. Sunport flies off of every other runway EXCEPT what Kirtland uses.  

How do I go about this?  It is even possible since they share some taxi ways?

[CMOS]

Sarge?  Anyone?

[IBtheSarge]

You can do it, but NOT with connecting taxiways (or anything else for that matter).  I have a test military base that has three separate AFCADs .... one for the military airbase part (using Rwys 18L, 36R, 27R, 9L), one for a civilian airport (using Rwys 18R, 36L, 27L, 9R), and one for the military aero club (using Rwys 17, 35, 28, 10).  There are no connecting taxiways and all three have their own airport reference points (ARP).  All three AFCADs and scenery are in the same \Addon Scenery\KSHX\Scenery folder.

If you have concurrent use taxiways, ATC use of the runways will be up for grabs.  The only way to keep certain traffic on certain runways to to disconnect the runways from each other.  Of course, that also requires that each type of traffic have its own parking ramps and taxiways.

Edited by sarge, 24 February 2007 - 08:12 PM.

[CMOS]

Thanks for the reply, Sarge.  

The crossing runways is what's making it difficult... as in the case of KABQ if I were to make Kirtland AFB use 8/26, Alb. Sunport aircraft would still have to taxi over portions of that runway to either park or t/o.  Since they wouldn't really know it's active(as I assume I would have to close 8/26 to them) they wouldn't take traffic into account and taxi at will.  Likewise for 35/17, Air Force traffic would have to taxi over that runway in order to park or t/o.  

I guess in the end it's kind of an impossible task.

[IBtheSarge]

CMOS, on Feb 25 2007, 12:04 PM, said:

I guess in the end it's kind of an impossible task.

You would delete from the military AFCAD anything that is strictly civilian use (the runway that has to be crossed, for example).  The military aircraft wouldn't even see the runway as far as ATC is concerned.  In the civilian AFCAD, just the opposite.  However, since both AFCADs are loaded up, the user would see everything.

You would run into texture flashing if you have both runways in both AFCADs; one would be sitting on top of the other, and even though the texture is the same for both, the overlay would cause flashing.

Edited by sarge, 25 February 2007 - 08:44 PM.

[CMOS]

Sarge said:

You would delete from the military AFCAD anything that is strictly civilian use (the runway that has to be crossed, for example). The military aircraft wouldn't even see the runway as far as ATC is concerned. In the civilian AFCAD, just the opposite. However, since both AFCADs are loaded up, the user would see everything.

Wouldn't this lead to the possibility of traffic collisions?  Since there would be two different ATCs acting independently, one wouldn't have any idea what the other is doing or believe they should even interact... at least I assume.  For instance, if an A-10 is landing on 26 while a commercial jetliner for ALB. Sunport is taxing back to the gate and has to cross runway 8/26, ATC wouldn't tell either aircraft to abort since neither ATC sees a conflict, correct?

[IBtheSarge]

CMOS, on Feb 26 2007, 06:56 PM, said:

Wouldn't this lead to the possibility of traffic collisions?  Since there would be two different ATCs acting independently, one wouldn't have any idea what the other is doing or believe they should even interact... at least I assume.  For instance, if an A-10 is landing on 26 while a commercial jetliner for ALB. Sunport is taxing back to the gate and has to cross runway 8/26, ATC wouldn't tell either aircraft to abort since neither ATC sees a conflict, correct?

Without common taxiways, and each AFCAD only having the one runway, there shouldn't be any back-taxiing.  Each plane would land and roll-out to the first available taxiway; each plane taking off would "possibly" t-bone the other aircraft if they both received simultaneous clearances for take-off and moved at the same speed towards the point where the two runways cross.

You should be able to squelch that by specifying the same Tower and Ground frequencies for both AFCADs.  The same thing as having one ATC covering both airports, just like two or more airports have the same Center controlling arrivals and departures.

Edited by sarge, 26 February 2007 - 07:31 PM.

[CMOS]

Sarge said:

Without common taxiways, and each AFCAD only having the one runway, there shouldn't be any back-taxiing. Each plane would land and roll-out to the first available taxiway; each plane taking off would "possibly" t-bone the other aircraft if they both received simultaneous clearances for take-off and moved at the same speed towards the point where the two runways cross.

You should be able to squelch that by specifying the same Tower and Ground frequencies for both AFCADs. The same thing as having one ATC covering both airports, just like two or more airports have the same Center controlling arrivals and departures.

Ahhh... that makes sense.  I'll have to try that.  I hope you don't mind if I pick your brain some more, Sarge?

I want to remove 8/26 from KABQ(leaving it visible in the new AFCAD which is called 1ABQ), so I delete it... however I am left with stop shorts on both sides of the runway and gap between them.  How do I connect them so that ATC will tell KABQ traffic to hold up when 1ABQ traffic is utilizing the runway?  Is it just a normal taxiway link?

Thanks again for the replies, Sarge!  Appreciate the time!

[IBtheSarge]

CMOS, on Feb 26 2007, 11:52 PM, said:

I want to remove 8/26 from KABQ(leaving it visible in the new AFCAD which is called 1ABQ), so I delete it... however I am left with stop shorts on both sides of the runway and gap between them.  How do I connect them so that ATC will tell KABQ traffic to hold up when 1ABQ traffic is utilizing the runway?  Is it just a normal taxiway link?

For the 1ABQ, you delete everything that you don't need -- hold short nodes, taxiway links, etc.  For KABQ, ditto.

The hold short nodes you're worried about will still be in each AFCAD to control the traffic that will be moving according to that AFCAD.  If there's traffic on 8/26, the hold short nodes will still be in the KABQ AFCAD; vice versa for the KABQ runway and the hold short nodes in 1ABQ.

You would leave the hold short nodes in place (in the opposite AFCAD) and connect them normally.  You just won't have a runway link in the middle so the aircraft can turn onto the runway (which isn't there, it's in the other AFCAD).  

Confusing?      

[PiP]

Surely there is a runway surface that's invisible?

Just bodge it over the other runway.

[TechnicolorYawn]

You can make your own runway object and textures in gmax and lay them over the existing AFCAD generated runways - any 3D architecture you place in the FS world is always at a layer higher than that of AFCAD generated objects, meaning that they completely obscure the default runways and taxiways.

Even if you just use a bit of clever screen-capturing and editing, you can make a textured polygon that would fit exactly over the crossing between the runways and obsure the flickering part.

Of course, then there's nothing to stop you making 'coverings' for the entire runway/taxiway/apron network is there?  

Edited by TechnicolorYawn, 27 February 2007 - 02:52 AM.

[IBtheSarge]

PiP, on Feb 27 2007, 01:47 AM, said:

Surely there is a runway surface that's invisible?
Just bodge it over the other runway.

Both runways will be visible.  The reason for removing one runway from each AFCAD is so aircraft that land/take-off at 1ABQ will not be routed along any path that only exists in the KABQ AFCAD, and vice versa.  Since both AFCADs are in the same Addon Scenery/Scenery folder, both will appear to the user, but only what is in each AFCAD will be available through the ATC for that particular AFCAD.

My "test" airbase (KHSX), for example, has three separate AFCADs -- one for military operations, one for civilian operations, and one for military Aero Club operations.  There's only one tower, but when military ops are going on, ATC will only direct the military aircraft based on the runways, taxiways, and ramp routes that are in the KHSX AFCAD.  ATC will only direct civilian aircraft based on the runways, taxiways, and ramp routes that in the KHSY AFCAD; same concept for the KHSZ aero club ops.  Each AFCAD only has the runways, taxiways, and ramp routes that are applicable to the specific aircraft operating from that area of the airport.  But, all three layouts are visible to any user aircraft that is in any of the three areas.

[CMOS]

Sarge said:

For the 1ABQ, you delete everything that you don't need -- hold short nodes, taxiway links, etc. For KABQ, ditto.

The hold short nodes you're worried about will still be in each AFCAD to control the traffic that will be moving according to that AFCAD. If there's traffic on 8/26, the hold short nodes will still be in the KABQ AFCAD; vice versa for the KABQ runway and the hold short nodes in 1ABQ.

You would leave the hold short nodes in place (in the opposite AFCAD) and connect them normally. You just won't have a runway link in the middle so the aircraft can turn onto the runway (which isn't there, it's in the other AFCAD). laugh.gif

Confusing? yes.gif no.gif yes.gif

Again, thanks for the help, Sarge!  

Well, both airports are operational... to what degree remains to be seen.  Both airports share the same tower which directs military traffic to land and t/o on the proper runway and then directs them to the proper parking locations as well as directs commerical and GA traffic to their respective sides of the airport.  I wasn't really able to figure out a way to have the airports have completely different taxiways without adding some additions(aprons around the runway) so they do share a common taxiway at one point.  Both KABQ and 1ABQ traffic is directed on said taxiway and haven't run into a traffic problem yet.  

It doesn't seem that they recognize each other's runway though.  For instance, ATC doesn't caution either airport when traffic is landing or t/o on crossing runway.  Is this inherent in the process or did I make a mistake?

[IBtheSarge]

CMOS, on Feb 27 2007, 12:49 PM, said:

It doesn't seem that they recognize each other's runway though.  For instance, ATC doesn't caution either airport when traffic is landing or t/o on crossing runway.  Is this inherent in the process or did I make a mistake?

I'm going to say it's part of the proces; no mistake on your part.  Remember that MSFS is not set up (for some reason) to have crossing runways operational at the same time.  That is only brought into the sim by user modification; the ATC engine still isn't geared to recognize simultaneous use and doesn't (to my knowledge) even have cautionary language built in to the ATC capabilities.

Pick a time of peak traffic (according to your flightplans) and monitor it closely.  If there continues to be no problems, you've got a working arrangement.  

Edited by sarge, 27 February 2007 - 04:21 PM.

[CMOS]

Sarge said:

I'm going to say it's part of the proces; no mistake on your part. Remember that MSFS is not set up (for some reason) to have crossing runways operational at the same time. That is only brought into the sim by user modification; the ATC engine still isn't geared to recognize simultaneous use and doesn't (to my knowledge) even have cautionary language built in to the ATC capabilities.

Pick a time of peak traffic (according to your flightplans) and monitor it closely. If there continues to be no problems, you've got a working arrangement.

Thanks for the help, Sarge!  The only cautionary language I know FS2004 ATC uses is when two aircraft are landing/taking off simultaneously on parallel runways("Caution the 737 landing on runway 34R).  

I'm still testing 1ABQ and KABQ to determine if/any deficiencies remain.  Early testing seems to show that while both airports will taxi aircraft onto the shared taxiway, they don't recognize traffic from the other airport.  For example, if 1ABQ directs an MC-130H to takeoff on runway 8 and KABQ directs a 737 to runway 3 they have the potential to "meet" on the common taxiway.  If they meet, ATC doesn't caution either aircraft that traffic is on the taxiway.

[IBtheSarge]

CMOS, on Feb 28 2007, 03:36 PM, said:

I'm still testing 1ABQ and KABQ to determine if/any deficiencies remain.  Early testing seems to show that while both airports will taxi aircraft onto the shared taxiway, they don't recognize traffic from the other airport.  For example, if 1ABQ directs an MC-130H to takeoff on runway 8 and KABQ directs a 737 to runway 3 they have the potential to "meet" on the common taxiway.  If they meet, ATC doesn't caution either aircraft that traffic is on the taxiway.

Yep; that's the problem with shared taxiways.  Is there no way to remove that taxiway from one AFCAD without an adverse impact?  I'm going to take a look at the standard KABQ this evening; which taxiway is the shared one?

[CMOS]

sarge, on Feb 28 2007, 06:28 PM, said:

Yep; that's the problem with shared taxiways.  Is there no way to remove that taxiway from one AFCAD without an adverse impact?  I'm going to take a look at the standard KABQ this evening; which taxiway is the shared one?

Someone more adept at modifying AFCADs might be able to locate a way to remove the shared taxiway without changing any of the airport.  Everytime I thought I figured it out there was another issue involved so I just kept the shared taxiway.

The shared taxiway is "A." On the 3rd image below I circled the shared taxiway... it's just above hold short node for entry to R8.

1ABQ: Kirtland Air Force Base


KABQ: Alb. Sunport


KABQ-- Prior to splitting

[IBtheSarge]

CMOS, on Feb 28 2007, 08:01 PM, said:

Someone more adept at modifying AFCADs might be able to locate a way to remove the shared taxiway without changing any of the airport.  Everytime I thought I figured it out there was another issue involved so I just kept the shared taxiway.

The shared taxiway is "A." On the 3rd image below I circled the shared taxiway... it's just above hold short node for entry to R8.

OUCH!  I see what you mean.  Let me work on this tonight and see if I can develop anything.

[CMOS]

sarge, on Feb 28 2007, 08:22 PM, said:

OUCH!  I see what you mean.  Let me work on this tonight and see if I can develop anything.

Thanks, Sarge.  I look forward to seeing another approach to the issue!

[IBtheSarge]

CMOS, on Mar 1 2007, 09:18 AM, said:

sarge, on Feb 28 2007, 08:22 PM, said:

OUCH!  I see what you mean.  Let me work on this tonight and see if I can develop anything.

Thanks, Sarge.  I look forward to seeing another approach to the issue!

Well, I worked on it till 03:00 Thursday morning.  I've got to run to T'hassee to get my youngest and take her to the airport in Orlando.  I'll be back Friday afternoon and get right back on it.  That parking ramp on the north side of A is really throwing a monkey wrench into the whole thing, isn't it?     Hang in there; don't give up 'till I do.