Runway designation letters missing 'T'

Ideas
1

Currently the datastructs of MS2020 and MS2024 support only the following runway designation letter values:

Designator of the primary end of the runway, one of the following values:

    0: NONE
    1: LEFT
    2: RIGHT
    3: CENTER
    4: WATER
    5: A
    6: B
    7: LAST

Where 1…4 are usually abbreviated with L,R, etc

There are however runways using T, especially in NZ south pole region (e.g. NZWD RW07T)
Those are referenced by Navigraph content but will not match the MS airport/runway data. i.e. causing the need to patch data on a guess base.
Btw: T is used (in NZ area but may be not worldwide) for True referenced runways.

→ It would be beneficial to extend the definitions and also reference the correct runways in the MS/Asobo FSim world.
That is to flag True north referenced facilities (VORs have it added in FS2024)
and to allow for T as runway designation letter.

While I understand that extending datastructs is a far stretch… at least allowing and using ‘T’ to be added for runways idents would eliminate inconsistencies when using Navigraph or other data matching the real world naming.

3

The ARINC424 standard itself removed the T runway designator in supplement 20 (2011), so it’s obsolete as far as navdata is concerned.

4

Well then Navigraph is wrong on that one ? They show NZWD with T runways and procedures.

BTW is the ARINC424 somewhere available - or just paid for?
Thank you.

5

No, we are also correct because it depends on the ARINC424 version you are using. We use record types with ARINC424-18 and ARINC424-19, and therefore, the T is included in our source and is also valid.

When you use ARINC424-20 (and above), only C, L, and R are available for the runway identifier…

Cheers,
Richard

1 Like
6

:slight_smile: Well then… as we don’t know which reference Asobo uses - let’s see how this develops.

Thanks for helping and explaining

7

As Richard said, they are still there in older ARINC standards, and the runways clearly still exist. My guess would be that it is implied by the airport being true referenced in the newer standards, but I am not certain of that… more investigation necessary.