AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: London City  (Read 1752 times)

Offline apenfold

  • Members
  • Posts: 295
London City
« on: July 10, 2011, 11:40:58 AM »
I've just noticed that at EGLC the current runway information is that it is only 1199m in length. This is 309m short of the actual length of 1508m, and as such results in severe restrictions being placed against aircraft that would in reality not be subject to restrictions (notably BAe146 and Avro RJ series aircraft). Is this a bug, or is there something that I don't know about the airport (because as far as I'm aware the last runway extension was in the early 1990s).

Cheers

Online Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14540
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: London City
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2011, 11:43:46 AM »
1199m is the runway TORA.

Offline Pilot Oatmeal

  • Members
  • Posts: 700
Re: London City
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2011, 12:30:27 PM »
Sami,is london cities LDA and TODA modelled as it is quite a difference then most airfields, like the clearway and ASDA

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: London City
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2011, 01:16:16 PM »
1199m is the runway TORA.

For those who don't know that's Takeoff Roll Allowed.  They don't let you use the whole length...

Offline Pilot Oatmeal

  • Members
  • Posts: 700
Re: London City
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2011, 01:32:03 PM »
Just a small correction, TORA is take off RUN availabe, while TODA is take off distance available which is the TORA plus the clearway

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: London City
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2011, 01:34:49 PM »
Just a small correction, TORA is take off RUN availabe, while TODA is take off distance available which is the TORA plus the clearway

Which most airports dont... especially to commercial traffic.  They wont kill ya if you land long/short in a Skycatcher. 

Offline apenfold

  • Members
  • Posts: 295
Re: London City
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2011, 05:39:08 PM »
Either there is an issue with the programming of EGLC runway features or there is a problem with BAe146 / Avro RJ settings, because whilst there are limitations on the aircraft (as with any and all), they are not such that they are pax limited on routes such as Paris, Amsterdam, ect. Indeed I seem to recall that in a previous game world I had RJs or 146s operating to Zurich without any limitations.

(Currently operating Fokker 50's at the moment, so not such a problem, but I'd have preferred to use RJs)

Monk Xion

  • Former member
Re: London City
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2011, 07:09:54 PM »
Either there is an issue with the programming of EGLC runway features or there is a problem with BAe146 / Avro RJ settings, because whilst there are limitations on the aircraft (as with any and all), they are not such that they are pax limited on routes such as Paris, Amsterdam, ect. Indeed I seem to recall that in a previous game world I had RJs or 146s operating to Zurich without any limitations.

(Currently operating Fokker 50's at the moment, so not such a problem, but I'd have preferred to use RJs)

I highly, highly recommend that you order Dash 8- 400Q's. The max gross weight ones. They are more efficient than the RJ's ain my opinion.

You are also operate ERJ's in about 5 yrs. (175's mainly I think)

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: London City
« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2011, 07:13:55 PM »
You should go see some of the Bae landings at LCY.  Hold on to your butt.  they slam into the ground.

Offline apenfold

  • Members
  • Posts: 295
Re: London City
« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2011, 07:15:17 PM »
I'm planning to go for Q400s, Fokkers are nice and cheap and plentiful at the moment though! And I've been on several 146's into and out of EGLC, probably the most fun flights I've ever been on!

Offline apenfold

  • Members
  • Posts: 295
Re: London City
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2011, 09:47:39 PM »
Does anyone know what exactly is happening here? Because I am seriously confused and worried. I started at EGLC (as I have in the past) thinking that Avros and (as I have just found out) Embraer 170s and even now I find Dash 8 Q400s would work in the same way that they have in past worlds and indeed in real life, without the restrictions that are currently being imposed on flights.

An example of this would be an RJ100 being limited to 69 passengers on a flight from City to Zurich (E170 STD limited to 59 and Q400 to 58).

I know that there are restrictions placed on aircraft according to their weights, however I think that the calculations here, based on runway length, are going astray. In previous worlds there haven't been these restrictions, and I highly doubt that in the real world BA would be operating their 170s (and 190s which I dread to think the limits will be when launched) or Swiss with their Avro RJs, if these pax limits were in place (which they aren't on these routes).

Online Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14540
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: London City
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2011, 10:01:47 PM »
The rwy length has been, incorrectly, defined as 1508m at least in Modern Times #2 (had that database closest at hand), and that causes the difference. I believe this change is after a bug report or other request. (since after all the physical dimension of runway is not nearly the same as the available runway here)



edit:   here .. http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,25322.0.html
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 10:06:16 PM by sami »

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: London City
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2011, 10:04:01 PM »
You should go see some of the Bae landings at LCY.  Hold on to your butt.  they slam into the ground.
And I've been on several 146's into and out of EGLC, probably the most fun flights I've ever been on!

+1 flew a CityJet RJ-85 in August, was such an amazing ride  :)
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

Offline Pilot Oatmeal

  • Members
  • Posts: 700
Re: London City
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2011, 10:23:14 PM »
The rwy length has been, incorrectly, defined as 1508m at least in Modern Times #2 (had that database closest at hand), and that causes the difference. I believe this change is after a bug report or other request. (since after all the physical dimension of runway is not nearly the same as the available runway here)



edit:   here .. http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,25322.0.html


So does this mean that Avro RJ's can't fly into and out of EGLC fully loaded?  Because I'm almost 100% certain they can, theres gotta be a problem with the LDA and TODA, ill figure this out

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: London City
« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2011, 10:31:51 PM »
remember that you don't need the full runway distance if you are flying with less fuel, too.  This is possibly how some of them are able to fly fully loaded.  They land as their engines start to flame out.

Offline NorgeFly

  • Members
  • Posts: 3652
Re: London City
« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2011, 10:34:02 PM »

So does this mean that Avro RJ's can't fly into and out of EGLC fully loaded?  Because I'm almost 100% certain they can, theres gotta be a problem with the LDA and TODA, ill figure this out

It depends how far they are flying. I know that when BA CityFlyer used the RJ100 to MAD it was limited to around 60 passengers (can't remember exact figure). The RJ85 was slightly less limited but still don't think it was possible to carry a full load.

However, flying from LCY to EDI they did carry full loads.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: London City
« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2011, 10:42:56 PM »
London City to Edinburgh is ~250nm.  of course the plane can fly full.  It doesnt need but 1/2 it's fuel.  Maybe less because those things burn a bunch more fuel climbing to altitude carrying extra/unnecessary fuel weight.

Offline apenfold

  • Members
  • Posts: 295
Re: London City
« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2011, 02:26:41 AM »
That is the case, but it isn't applying in the game right now. The use of the TORA figure is technically right, but its use is limiting aircraft usage much more drastically than happens in reality and indeed much more than has been in previous game worlds. It is excellent that the correct restrictions have been placed on fleet type usage at the airport, however the runway length is a serious problem for me given my plans for expansion and the inability to do so without significant unrealistic handicaps.

I'm really sorry this is a complainey thread now, I really don't like doing it, but I just want to try and get to the bottom of understanding this. If someone can give me a good reason why it is how it is and why it should be unrealistically limiting aircraft usage then I'll gladly go away and shut up. Once again, sorry for the fact that this has turned into a complaint.

Online Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14540
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: London City
« Reply #18 on: July 11, 2011, 03:18:45 PM »
The differences vs. real ops are probably because the runway calculations are not (can not not) be dead accurate. There's one minor bug related to them (but not related to this) and I am planning to re-codethat area later on (= fix the issue, and make it generally better) , but it's a very low priority.

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.